CASE-HAJI WAN HABIB SYED MAHMUD V DATUK PATINGGI HAJI ABDUL TAIB MAHMUD & ANOR [1986] 2 MLJ 198

HAJI WAN HABIB SYED MAHMUD V DATUK PATINGGI HAJI ABDUL TAIB MAHMUD & ANOR [1986] 2 MLJ 198

FACTS:

·         That a resolution suspending the appellant was passed in his absence. He was orally informed. A letter followed on 26/11/1985.

·         That the appellant was not notified of Majlis Kerja Tertinggi’s intention to resolve his suspension.

·         That the appellant was not given any notice specifically of what he was accused of. It was only the appellant’s belief that Majlis Kerja Tertinggi (MKT) was going to discuss his conduct when he was asked to leave the meeting.

·         The appellant was not given the opportunity of being heard before the resolution was made to suspend him.

JUDGMENT:

The appeal was dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The reason was based on the governing principles:

·         A prima facie case of natural justice having been denied to the appellant. The claim was not frivolous and there was a serious question to be tried. There is no distinction in law between expulsion and suspension.

·         That alone is not sufficient for the appellant to obtain the interlocutory injunction as of right. In this case the trial judge considered that the balance of convenience did not lie in favour of the appellant.

***2 factors which the judge considered. First is the fact that half of the period of suspension had lapsed. The second is the found the delay of 2 months unreasonable and no explanation given. So the learned trial judge refused the interlocutory injunction.

·         Discretionary remedies are exceptional in their nature and should not be made available to those who sleep on their rights.

·         The grant of the interlocutory injunction was a matter for the exercise of discretion by the learned judge and in this case his decision should not be interfered with.