Aidil Bin Abas v XXXX (BA-25-34-03/2019)

TAN SRI DATO’ SRI NOOR RASHID BIN IBRAHIM PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB

LEMBAGA TATATERTIB

3.

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA ... RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 73)

On 29.4.2026, the Applicant’s notice of assessment of damages was struck out with costs of RM3,000.00 to the Respondents. The following are the grounds for that decision. S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ Background facts

The Applicant commenced this judicial review proceedings against his dismissal from the Royal Malaysian Police Force (PDRM) on 27.3.2019. His application was dismissed by the High Court on 20.12.2022 and he filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. His appeal was allowed on 23.4.2024.

On 21.5.2024, the Applicant filed a notice of assessment of damages in Enclosure 73. In Enclosure 73, the Applicant stated that the notice was filed pursuant to prayer 10 of his Judicial Review application (Enclosure 1) which had been allowed by the Court of Appeal.

He prayed that an inquiry be held to determine salaries, emoluments, allowances and other service benefits due to him from 1.1.2019 or from his dismissal on 12.12.2018 till full and final settlement taking into account –

his prospects for promotion;

(ii) annual salary increase; and

(iii) interest at 5% per annum pursuant to the Rules of Court 2012 and the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction No. 1 of 2012.

Enclosure 73 came up for case management on 20.6.2024 before the Deputy Registrar (DR). No directions were given pending the filing of the sealed order. On 3.7.2024, the DR S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ was informed that the Applicant would not be withdrawing Enclosure 73. The Court of Appeal order had been served on PDRM and that the Respondents computing the monies due to the Applicant. Enclosure 73 was managed from 6.8.2024 to 14.11.2024 by the DR pending feedback from the parties.

On 19.12.2024, the DR was informed that the parties failed to reach a settlement and asked for directions. During the case management on 14.1.2025, the Applicant informed the DR that he was not satisfied with the computation of the monies due to him as his prospects for promotion had not been considered. The DR directed the Applicant to take out summons for directions for Enclosure 73. The DR gave directions and managed Enclosure 73 for 2025.

Enclosure 73 first came up before the Court on 15.4.2026. The Court was referred to the Court of Appeal order dated 23.4.2024 (Order) which read – “… MAKA ADALAH DENGAN SEBULAT SUARA DIPERINTAHKAN bahawa : a. Rayuan Perayu adalah dibenarkan; S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ b. Keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam melalui Perintah bertarikh 20 Disember 2022 adalah diketepikan; c. Relif-relif yang dipohon oleh Perayu dalam Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman Terpinda bertarikh 29 Ogos 2019 adalah dibenarkan sepertimana berikut:

Perintah deklarasi atau certiorari atau perintah bahawa hukuman Buang Kerja mengikut Perkara 38

Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan Dan Tatatertib) 1993 [Pindaan 2002] terhadap Pemohon oleh Responden-Responden melalui surat bertarikh 18.12.2018 [yang diserahkan kepada Pemohon pada 27.12.2018] adalah tidak sah dan batal di sisi undang-undang dan tidak mematuhi Perkara 132 dan 135 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan bertentangan dengan prinsip keadilan asasi dan justeru itu Pemohon masih seorang Pegawai Polis DiRaja Malaysia berpangkat Inspektor;

Deklarasi atau perintah bahawa hukuman Buang Kerja mengikut Perkara 38 (g) Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 adalah tidak sah, batal dan tidak adil disisi undang-undang kerana Responden-Responden mencapai keputusan tersebut dengan secara tidak munasabah S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ dan gagal mengambil kira representasi yang dikemukakan oleh Pemohon yang jelas, bermerit dan kukuh;

Perintah mandamus terhadap Responden-Responden untuk memadam rekod buang kerja dan mengambil semula Pemohon untuk bekerja;

Suatu siasatan untuk menentukan semua tunggakan gaji, emolument, elaun-elaun, dan faedah-faedah lain perkhidmatan yang Pemohon sepatutnya menerima daripada tarikh 1.1.2019 atau tarikh kuatkuasa Pemohon dibuang kerja pada 12.12.2018 sehingga penyelesaian penuh. d. Kos sebanyak RM20,000.00 dibayar oleh Responden-Responden kepada Perayu.”

The Court asked the Applicant for an explanation whether prayer 10 in the Order entitled them to file an assessment of damages, the Applicant’s counsel asked for time to get his instructions. On the next case management date before the Court, the Applicant maintained that prayer 10 in the Order entitled him to file Enclosure 73. The Court struck out Enclosure 73. Hence this appeal. S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ Analysis and findings

Order 37 Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) governs the procedure for the assessment of damages. In particular, O.37 r.1(1) ROC reads – “Where judgment is given for damages to be assessed and no provision is made by the judgment as to how they are to be assessed, the damages shall, subject to the provision of the Order , be assessed by the Registrar, and the party entitled to the benefit of the judgment shall within one month from the date of the judgment, apply to the Registrar for directions and the provisions of Order 34 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply.”

In Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v. Chin Teck Kwee & Anor [1997] 2 MLJ 565; [1997] 3 CLJ 305; [1997] 3 AMR 2458, Gopal Sri Ram FCJ held at 582 - “The next question that arises is whether the learned judge was right in reversing the order he made in chambers and in setting aside the whole of the judgment, when the summons before him sought to set aside only so much of the judgment that directed the assessment of damages. I think that he was. This is a case in which the plaintiffs had absolutely no right whatsoever to obtain an order for the assessment of damages. There was, as earlier observed, no judgment for damages against the defendants on 28 November 1991. It is elementary S/N Z/ZEuhpgkOWdq7cAPthyQ law that there can be no assessment of damages in the absence of a judgment granting damages. Such a judgment did not come until 2 December 1991. So, here is a case where the cart had been squarely placed before the horse. The judgment for the assessment of damages was found in a judgment which was flawed in other respects. The learned judge was therefore perfectly entitled, in the interests of justice, to take cognizance of the breach of O 13 r 6(1) and to set aside the whole of the offending judgment. The authority of a court to act suo motu to set aside a judgment entered pursuant to its coercive power must, no doubt, be exercised with caution. But it is there to be exercised in appropriate cases; and I am satisfied that the case at hand was indeed a proper case.”

These authorities make it clear that there must first be an explicit adjudication of liability for damages and a specific judgment granting the Applicant damages. Without a clear and positive judgment that damages are payable, there can be no assessment of damages. An assessment of damages cannot exist in vacuum.

In the present application, this Court is satisfied that prayer 10 of the Order does not constitute a judgment for damages to be assessed. Prayer 10 is an administrative direction given to the Respondents to compute monies due to the Applicant from the date of his dismissal to his reinstatement. This inquiry is confined to a mathematical calculation of liquidated sums