Mohammad Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Mohammad Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Appeal dismissed: no breach of the second rule of natural justice; AG/PP and DPPs do not owe a duty of care in negligence regarding prosecutorial discretion because those powers are exercisable in the public interest and public policy negates such a duty; civil claims grounded on malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office arising from prosecutions require final termination of criminal proceedings in the claimant’s favour and the appellant had not been finally acquitted when suit was filed; courts should not recognise a tort of malicious process against AG/PP and DPPs in respect of prosecutorial exercise.

Citation
W-01(IM)(NCvC)-907-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak; Respondent: Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Case Number
W-01(IM)(NCvC)-907-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Abuse of Process, Negligence, Prosecutorial Discretion, Natural Justice (second Rule)
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Tort Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Public Law Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Abuse of Process +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak

Appellant

Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second rule of natural justice was breached by the High Court relying on a reason not argued by parties
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor and Deputy Public Prosecutors owe a duty of care in negligence for prosecutorial decisions
  3. 3 Whether accused persons may sue AG/PP and DPPs for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: no breach of the second rule of natural justice; AG/PP and DPPs do not owe a duty of care in negligence regarding prosecutorial discretion because those powers are exercisable in the public interest and public policy negates such a duty; civil claims grounded on malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office arising from prosecutions require final termination of criminal proceedings in the claimant’s favour and the appellant had not been finally acquitted when suit was filed; courts should not recognise a tort of malicious process against AG/PP and DPPs in respect of prosecutorial exercise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM12,000.00 (subject to allocatur fee)
  • High Court’s striking out of the suit on the impugned tort claims affirmed