Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandamus

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

ARUNKUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 1. ) INSPEKTOR NUR AKMAL BIN AMRAN 2. ) KETUA POLIS JOHOR 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara 4. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-25-4-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-4-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application is dismissed because the seizure and forfeiture were statutory acts forming part of a criminal investigation and therefore not amenable to judicial review; there was no allegation or proof of mala fide; the applicant failed to claim the property within the statutory period; and no statutory duty exists obliging respondents to refer the claim or return the property, so mandamus and certiorari reliefs are inappropriate.
27 Feb 2026

Mohamad Sukry bin Tamsuri 1. ) ACP Ng Siew Hiang 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 3. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-611-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to produce contemporaneous evidence that he attempted to obtain the requested documents and therefore cannot claim denial of documents; applicant did not exculpate himself by furnishing credible evidence in his written representation and therefore was not entitled to an oral hearing; disciplinary authority considered the representations and its decision to impose dismissal was not tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; application dismissed with costs.
23 Feb 2026

KCSB KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor 2. ) JOHOR CORPORATION

Citation

JA-21NCvC-21-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-21NCvC-21-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ and statement of claim dated 13.12.2024 constitute an abuse of process by substantial duplication of issues already the subject of active proceedings (SP 1017 and JR 41); therefore the action is struck out under Order 18 r 19(1)(d) KKM 2012 to prevent multiplicity, conflicting decisions and misuse of court process. The court did not decide the substantive merits of the underlying claims.
12 Feb 2026

1. ) Adzni bin Ahmad Fekry 2. ) Ahmad Zainurrashid bin Bunyamin 3. ) Amirliza Bin Busu 4. ) Azuwan bin Dol 5. ) BS Law And Sons Sdn Bhd 6. ) BS Law Realty Sdn Bhd 7. ) Chan Poh Guan 8. ) Chang Wee Chin 9. ) Wang Li Li 10. ) Dato' Law Ban Se

Citation

MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 4th Defendant was struck out because the pleadings were vague, unparticularised and abusive, seeking to convert a contractual dispute with the developer into an action against a local authority; the appropriate remedy for alleged failure to perform statutory duties is judicial review/mandamus and not the present form of action, therefore the claims were scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process and disclosed no sustainable cause of action under Order 18 r19(1)(b) and (d).
21 Jan 2026

EVERGREEN FUTURE HOME BUILDERS 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PENGGUNA 2. ) JAI BHAVANI

Citation

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the Attorney General's objection and dismissed the leave application because it was filed 93 days late beyond the three-month limit in O.53 r.3(6) and the applicant failed to establish good reason to extend time under O.53 r.3(7); the 2nd Respondent was not entitled to participate at the ex parte leave stage absent an invitation.
19 Jan 2026

SITI SUHANA BINTI SUID 1. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-19-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicant failed to establish illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety: the PSC show cause was properly particularised and premised on a prima facie case, not the JPJ decision; alleged predetermination was misconstrued; inclusion of weekends/public holidays did not invalidate the charge; no duty arose to furnish documents absent a request; the delay was not inordinate and delay alone does not amount to condonation; mitigation and an express duty to give reasons are not mandated by the 1993 Regulations in the circumstances; proportionality of punishment is for the…
2 Jan 2026

KARTHIGEYEN A/L JAGANNATHA GOUNDAR NATHAN 1. ) BEH ENG LAI (ACP) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA, IBU PEJABAT POLIS KONTINJEN KUALA LUMPUR 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA, KUALA LUMPUR 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-459-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-459-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the application fails: Reg 28 did not apply because the applicant was not interdicted; Reg 30 did not bar the disciplinary process because no criminal proceedings were pending and the disciplinary charges constituted distinct misconduct; the Disciplinary Board was validly constituted; the absence of a statutory right of appeal for police officers does not breach Articles 5, 8 or 135(2); accordingly certiorari and declarations were refused and the judicial review dismissed.
29 Dec 2025

APRIL CAMILLA ROSLANI 1. ) NOOR AZUAN ABU OSMAN 2. ) Universiti Malaya (UM)

Citation

BA-25-98-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-98-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the statutory internal remedy in s33(1) did not apply (Vice‑Chancellor is not an 'Authority' under the definition), the Vice‑Chancellor has express statutory discretion under s24(7) to revoke deanships at any time, the appointment was an administrative domestic post not contractual, the applicant had no legally enforceable legitimate expectation or right to prior hearing or reasons, and there was no evidence of mala fide or abuse of power.
22 Dec 2025

DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK 1. ) Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh 2. ) KOMISIONER JENERAL PENJARA 3. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. ) LEMBAGA PENGAMPUNAN BAGI WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, LABUAN DAN PUTRAJAYA

Citation

WA-25-136-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-136-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Addendum Order is invalid because it was not made in compliance with Article 42: the house arrest terms were not deliberated or advised upon at the Pardons Board meeting presided by the YDPA; therefore the Respondents have no duty to implement it and mandamus cannot be granted; further, house arrest as ordered is not an executable mechanism under the Prisons Act and Regulations which vest release on licence in the Commissioner General.
12 Dec 2025

AZMI BIN OSMAN 1. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 3. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA 4. ) Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia 5. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA 6. ) Pengarah Jabatan

Citation

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-269-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that under s10 the applicant's service was deemed extended to the date of conviction and under s21 his conviction disentitled him to pension; the disciplinary proceedings' non-completion was irrelevant because conviction removed entitlement and the disciplinary authority lost jurisdiction on retirement; mandamus could not compel a discretionary grant by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so judicial review failed and the application was dismissed.