MUSTAPHA KAMIL BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM

MUSTAPHA KAMIL BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM 2. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM

No binding offer existed because the 2nd Defendant never issued a formal letter of offer nor obtained the necessary acceptance and ancillary documents; PSC's approval to release the officer did not equate to appointment. Consequently the declarations and reliefs sought fail and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-371-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mustapha Kamil bin Abdullah; 1st Defendant (chief Executive Officer, Swcorp): Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif; 2nd Defendant (swcorp): Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-371-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Administrative / Employment (public Service Secondment) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Secondment, Permanent Transfer, Appointment Process, Service Circulars, Declarations, Judicial Review, Remedies, Statutory Body Decision
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Civil Procedure Secondment Permanent Transfer Appointment Process Service Circulars +4 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustapha Kamil bin Abdullah

Plaintiff

Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif

1st Defendant (chief Executive Officer, Swcorp)

Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam

2nd Defendant (swcorp)

Procedural Posture

Administrative / Employment (public Service Secondment) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant made a valid offer of permanent appointment
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff can be deemed appointed following PSC's release approval
  3. 3 Whether the action should have been commenced by judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

No binding offer existed because the 2nd Defendant never issued a formal letter of offer nor obtained the necessary acceptance and ancillary documents; PSC's approval to release the officer did not equate to appointment. Consequently the declarations and reliefs sought fail and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay costs of RM 2,000 to the Defendants