Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Injunctions against government

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2025

GANESAN A/L A. RENGAN Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang PENCELAH West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1770-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1770-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish special circumstances warranting a stay of execution; the scheduled portion had been vested in the State Authority by endorsement of Form K and memorial, injunctions against the State are constrained by statute and precedent, and the proper remedy to challenge acquisition procedure is judicial review or appeal rather than a stay of execution which would improperly restrain the State and prejudice public interest and the concessionaire.
11 Mar 2025

Sinar Teknik Urus Harta Sdn Bhd 1. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Datuk Seri Dr. Haji Dzulkefly Ahmad (Menteri Kesihatan Malaysia) 4. ) Dato' Seri Ir. Dr. Zaini Bin Ujang 5. ) Dato' Seri Anwar Bin I

Citation

WA-21NCvC-29-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-29-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claim struck out because Plaintif failed to establish formation of a binding contract: no award letter was communicated to Plaintif, the documents relied upon were internal and one was cancelled, D1/D2 are not proper suable entities, and the claim seeks remedies (including injunctions) that are constrained by statutory limits; therefore the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process.
13 Sept 2024

DATARAN SATRIA (M) SDN BHD 1. ) KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 2. ) MENTERI PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 3. ) KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-24-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, construed in context and in light of binding authority, bars the grant of injunctions against the Government in these proceedings (including non‑court proceedings such as arbitration); accordingly the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief to restrain calls on the bank guarantees must be dismissed.
6 May 2024

MOHAMED AMINUDEEN BIN ABDUL HAMID 1. ) MENTERI KEWANGAN MALAYSIA 2. ) BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 4. ) Resolution Alliance Sdn. Bhd 5. ) Malayan Banking Berhad

Citation

WA-25-88-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-88-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because granting it would indirectly restrain the Klang Land Administrator from performing statutory duties under the NLC, which is prohibited by s29 GPA; the applicant had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy under s418 NLC and had not served or afforded the Land Administrator a hearing, making the application a collateral attack and contrary to principles of natural justice.
7 May 2023

OTHMAN BIN MAT GENDA 1. ) DATUK HAJI KAMARUDIN BIN MD NOR 2. ) Lembaga Kemajuan Pertanian Kemubu (KADA)

Citation

DA-22NCvC-23-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-23-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application for interim injunction dismissed because the court will not grant injunctions that interfere with governmental/public duties (Sections 29 and 54), plaintiff failed to show a bona fide serious issue requiring equitable interim relief, gave no undertaking as to damages, and the balance of convenience and public interest strongly favoured defendants.
21 Mar 2022

1. ) MANIVANAN A/L AYADURAI 2. ) Jeyaletchumi A/p V. Ramiah 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

BA-22NCvC-580-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-580-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs are squatters on State Land and therefore have no reasonable cause of action to claim title or enforce alienation; the pleadings are obviously unsustainable, amount to an abuse of process by attempting to shortcut the statutory alienation regime vested in the State Authority, and the claim is frivolous/vexatious and must be struck out.
26 Apr 2021

DEHIAS HOLDINGS SDN BHD KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA

Citation

KA-25-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-25-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prayer No. (2) was refused because the requested stay was in substance an injunction restraining a government revenue-collecting agency and is barred by section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act and section 54 of the Specific Relief Act; additionally stay applications require special circumstances and ought to be heard inter partes so the Respondent may answer the evidential assertions, therefore the ex parte stay application was premature and properly dismissed with costs.
18 Sept 2020

DHAYA MAJU LTAT SDN BHD 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) WEE KA SIONG

Citation

WA-21C-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21C-7-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held it was bound by the Supreme Court/Federal Court and later Court of Appeal authorities (notably Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang (UEM) and the Court of Appeal decisions in Kuching Waterfront and Tan Bun Teet) that s29 GPA 1956 together with s54 SRA 1950 operate to prohibit the grant of injunctions (including interim or interlocutory injunctions) which would restrain the Government or interfere with its public duties; the Minister was sued in substance in his official capacity so relief against him would equally be barred; accordingly the application for an ad interim injun…
24 Nov 2019

PERSATUAN PENIAGA KECIL DALAM PASAR PASIR PUTEH KELANTAN (PEMBEKAL) 1. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI KELANTAN 2. KERAJAAN NEGERI KELANTAN

Citation

DA-21NCVC-17-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCVC-17-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the Amended Statement of Claim because the amendments were bona fide, did not change the character of the suit, and any prejudice to the defendant was compensable by costs (RM10,000). Separately, the ex parte interim injunction against the State and its department was discharged because statutory bars in Government Proceedings Act s29 and Specific Relief Act s54 prohibit granting injunctions that would restrain the Government or interfere with public duties; costs of RM15,000 were ordered subject to allocatur.