Othman Bin Mat Genda v 1. ) Datuk Haji Kamarudin Bin MD Nor (DA-22NCvC-23-05/2022)

suatu injunksi sementara ke atas Pihak Defendan, agen atau pengkhidmat mereka bahawa segala kenaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA Gred 1 – 52 yang dibuat oleh Pengerusi dan/atau Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat (Gred 1 - 52) di gantung/ditahan dan/atau dihalang sehingga permohonan ini diputuskan.

(ii) suatu injunksi sementara ke atas Pihak Defendan, agen atau pengkhidmat mereka bahawa segala kenaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA Gred 54 dan ke atas yang dibuat oleh Ahli Lembaga Pengarah KADA yang di ambil dari Pegawai KADA yang dilantik oleh Pengerusi dan/atau Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat (Gred 1 - 52) dari 6.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022 di gantung/ditahan dan/atau dihalang sehingga permohonan ini diputuskan.

(iii) suatu perintah injunksi ke atas Pihak Defendan, agen atau pengkhidmat mereka bahawa segala kenaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA Gred 1 – 52 yang dibuat oleh Pengerusi dan/atau Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat (Gred 1 - 52) di gantung/ditahan dan/atau dihalang sehingga tindakan guaman ini diputuskan.

(iv) suatu perintah injunksi ke atas Pihak Defendan, agen atau pengkhidmat mereka bahawa segala kenaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA Gred 54 dan ke atas yang dibuat oleh Ahli 27/09/2023 11:51:49 DA-22NCvC-23-05/2022 Kand. 41 Lembaga Pengarah KADA yang di ambil dari Pegawai KADA yang dilantik oleh Pengerusi dan/atau Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat (Gred 1 - 52) dari 6.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022 di gantung/ditahan dan/atau dihalang sehingga tindakan guaman ini diputuskan. [2] Plaintif adalah seorang warga negara Malaysia dan merupakan Pegawai Pertanian Gred 48 yang bekerja dengan Defendan 2. [3] Defendan 1 juga adalah seorang warga negara Malaysia dan dilantik sebagai Pengerusi Lembaga Kemajuan Pertanian Kemubu (KADA) bermula 16.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022. [4] Defendan 2 adalah sebuah agensi kerajaan yang ditubuhkan di bawah Kementerian Pertanian dan Industri Makanan dan bertanggungjawab memaju dan menggalakkan pembangunan ekonomi dan sosial golongan petani di kawasan Kemubu, Kelantan. Fakta [5] Plaintif adalah seorang Pegawai Pertanian Gred 48 yang bekerja dengan Defendan 2. Beliau mendakwa lantikan Pengerusi Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat Pegawai KADA (Gred 1 -52) adalah tidak sah atas alasan tidak layak, bukan penjawat awam, tiada pengetahuan serta pengalaman sesuai, bukan seorang pakar dalam bidang pertanian, dari lantikan politik, bukan wakil Kementerian Pertanian dan Industri Makanan dan tidak menjalankan tugas mengikut proses undang-undang. [6] Sehubungan itu Plaintif memfailkan writ saman ini dan menuntut:

suatu deklarasi bahawa lantikan Pengerusi Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat Pegawai KADA (Gred 1 -52) dari 6.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022 adalah tidak sah dan terbatal.

(ii) suatu deklarasi bahawa keputusan Pengerusi dan Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat Pegawai KADA (Gred 1 - 52) KADA yang menaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA dari 6.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022 adalah tidak sah dan terbatal.

(iii) suatu deklarasi bahawa kenaikan pangkat Pegawai KADA Gred 54 ke atas yang dibuat oleh Ahli Lembaga Pengarah KADA yang di ambil dari Pegawai KADA yang dilantik oleh Pengerusi dan/atau Ahli Jawatan Kuasa Kenaikan Pangkat (Gred 1 - 52) dari 6.5.2020 hingga 15.5.2022 digantung dan disemak semula sehingga penyelesaian tindakan ini. Isu [7] Isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan mahkamah adalah:

sama ada Plaintif menunjukan suatu bona fide serious issue untuk dibicarakan;

(ii) di mana keadilan berpihak i.e. sama ada dikeluarkan atau tidak dikeluarkan injunksi interim ini;

(iii) sama ada pampasan kewangan mencukupi untuk memampaskan Pihak Defendan jika Plaintif gagal dalam tuntutannya. Penelitian dan penemuan mahkamah [8] Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan ini pada 3.7.2022 dan memohon didengar dengan segera melalui pemfailan perakuan segera. Saya telah menolak permohonan perakuan segera ini kerana tiada justifikasi dan mengarahkan didengar secara inter partes. [9] Setelah meneliti dan menimbangkan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, affidavit-afidavit serta eksibit-eksibit dokumentar yang difailkan, saya mendapati jawatan Defendan 1 adalah lantikan Yang di Pertuan Agong dan Defendan 2 adalah sebuah jabatan kerajaan di bawah Kementerian Pertanian dan Asas Tani. [10] Selaras dengan peruntukan Seksyen 29 Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956, saya berpendapat mahkamah ini mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mengeluarkan injunksi terhadap kerajaan kerana tuntutan dalam writ saman bukanlah untuk mendapatkan perintah injunksi atau pelaksanaan spesifik. Seksyen ini memperuntukan:

29.

In any civil proceedings by or against the Government the court shall, subject to this Act, have power to make all such orders as it has power to make in proceedings between subjects, and otherwise to give such appropriate relief as the case may require: Provided that—

where in any proceedings against the Government any such relief is sought as might in proceedings between subjects be granted by way of injunction or specific performance, the court shall not grant an injunction or make an order for specific performance, but may in lieu thereof make an order declaratory of the rights of the parties; and

in any proceedings against the Government for the recovery of land or other property the court shall not make an order for the recovery of the land or the delivery of the property, but may in lieu thereof make an order declaring that the plaintiff is entitled as against the Government to the land or property or to the possession thereof.

The court shall not in any civil proceedings grant any injunction or make any order against an officer of the Government if the effect of granting the injunction or making the order would be to give any relief against the Government which could not have been obtained in proceedings against the Government. [11] Namun bidangkuasa ini tertakluk atau dihadkan oleh Seksyen 54 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 yang memperuntukan: Injunction when refused Section 54. An injunction cannot be granted “(a)to interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia or with the sovereign acts of a foreign Government.” [12] Prinsip-prinsip mantap berhubung dengan isu ini telah diputuskan dalam kes-kes: Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 SC: “This means that no injunction could be directly or indirectly issued against the Government or its officers. Similarly, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a private litigant if the injunction would have the effect of restraining the Government or its officers from performing their functions. This has been the interpretation which has been placed by the Courts in England as well as in this Country.” Tan Boon Teet & Ors v Menteri Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi [2013] 3 CLJ 1115 CA: “[14] But that is not all. An injunction, interim/interlocutory or permanent, cannot be granted against the government under s. 29 of the GPA and under s. 54 of the SPA. The authority to support this proposition can be found in the decision of our then Supreme Court in Lim Kit Siang v. United Engineers (M) Bhd & Ors [1987] 2 CLJ 195; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 170 SC. In particular, the relevant passage from the judgment states: “This means that no injunction could be directly or indirectly issued against the Government or its officers. Similarly, the court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a private litigant if the injunction would have the effect of ‘restraining the Government or its officers from performing their functions. This has been the interpretation which has been placed by the courts in England as well as in this country.” [13] Atas alasan ini sahaja, saya menolak permohonan Plaintif untuk mendapatkan suatu perintah injunksi sementara (untuk menunggu permohonan ini dilupuskan dan untuk sehingga tindakan guaman ini selesai). [14] Bagi tujuan melengkapkan keputusan dalam permohonan ini (for the purpose of completeness), saya juga menimbangkan kriteria yang diperlukan bagi permohonan mendapatkan suatu perintah injunksi sementara seperti yang diputuskan melalui prinsip-prinsip mantap dalam kes-kes: American Cynamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] All ER 504 “the use of such expressions as ‘prohibitory’, ‘a prima facie case’, or ‘a strong prima facie case’ in the context of the exercise of a discretionary power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to confusion as to the object sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief. The court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried…” Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah & Ors [1994] MLRA 454 CA [19] To summarise, a Judge hearing an application for interlocutory injunction should undertake an inquiry along the following lines: first, he must ask himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him discloses a bona fide serious issue to be tried. He must, when considering this question, bear in mind that the pleadings and evidence are incomplete at that stage. Above all, he must refrain from making any determination on the merits of the claim or any defence to it. It is sufficient if he identifies with precision the issues raised on the joinder and decides whether these are serious enough to merit a trial. If he finds, upon a consideration of all the relevant material before him, including submissions of Counsel, that no serious question is disclosed, that is an end of the matter and the relief is refused. On the other hand if he does find that there are serious questions to be tried, he should move on to the next step of his inquiry; second, having found that an issue has been disclosed that requires further investigation, he must consider where the justice of the case lies. In making his assessment, he must take into account all relevant matters, including the practical realities of the case before him. He must weigh the harm that the injunction would produce by its grant against the harm that would result from its refusal. He is entitled to take into account, inter alia, the relative financial standing of the litigants before him. If after weighing all matters, he comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff would suffer greater injustice if relief is withheld, then he would be entitled to grant the injunction especially if he is satisfied that the plaintiff is in financial position to meet his undertaking in damages. Similarly, if he concludes that the defendant would suffer the greater injustice by the grant of a injunction, he would be entitled to refuse relief. Of course, cases may arise where the injustice to the plaintiff is so manifest that the Judge would be entitled to dispense with the usual undertaking as to damages. Also, the Judge is entitled to take into account the plaintiff's ability to meet his undertaking in damages should the suit fail, and, in appropriate cases, may require the plaintiff to secure his undertaking, for example, by providing a bank guarantee thirdly, the Judge must have in the forefront of his mind that the remedy that he is asked to administer is discretionary, intended to produce a just result for the period between the date of the application and the trial proper and intended to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the Judge would be entitled to take into account all discretionary considerations, such as delay in the making of the application or any adequate alternative remedy that would satisfy the plaintiff's equity, such as an award of monetary compensation in the event that he succeeds in establishing his claim at the trial. Any question going to the public interest may, and in appropriate cases should, be taken into account. A Judge should briefly set out in his judgment the several factors that weighed in his mind when arriving at his conclusion.” [15] Berdasarkan kriteria dalam prinsip kes-kes berkenaan, saya mendapati:

tidak terdapat isu-isu bona fide yang perlu dibicarakan kerana Pengerusi dan Jawatankuasa Kenaikan Pangkat Gred 1-52 mempunyai bidangkuasa dalam menimbangkan kenaikan pangkat mana-mana pegawai yang difikirkan layak.

(ii) Plaintif tidak memberikan akujanji untuk memampaskan atau membayar gantirugi kepada Pihak Defendan (sama ada dalam permohonan atau affidavit sokongan) jika permohonan ini dibenarkan. Walau pun ianya bukanlah suatu keperluan mandatori tetapi ianya adalah suatu keperluan berdasarkan kepada fakta kes ini (Elias Mooin & Anor v Dato Zainal Abidin Johari [1997] 3 CLJ 455 dan kes Dato Tan Toh Hua v Tan Toh Hong & Ors [2001] 1 CLJ 732).

(iii) dengan menggunakan imbangan keadilan, saya mendapati Pihak Defendan akan mengalami kesan ketidak-adilan yang melebihi dari Plaintif kerana segala urusan pertadbiran dan perjalanan Defendan 2 kepada rakyat dan negara akan terjejas dengan teruknya tanpa boleh dipampaskan jika suatu perintah injunksi dikeluarkan. Manakala Plaintif boleh dipampaskan secukupnya jika dia berjaya dalam tuntutannya. Sebagai panduan saya merujuk kepada kes berikut: Tenaga Nasionai Berhad v. Dolomite Industrial Park Sdn Bhd [2000] 1 MLRA 18 dimana Yang Arif Hakim Gopal Sri Ram telah memetik penghakiman dari kes Smith v. Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411 yang menyatakan berkenaan kepentingan awam seperti berikut: “... I think counsel for the authority is right in saying that where the defendant is a public authority performing duties to the public one must look at the balance of convenience more widely, and take into account the interests of the public in general to whom these duties are owed.”

(iv) atas balance of convenience, perintah injunksi tidak perlu dikeluarkan. Keputusan [16] Permohonan Plaintif di Lampiran 8 ditolak. [17] Plaintif diperintahkan membayar kos sebanyak RM5,000 kepada Pihak Defendan (dikongsi) dan tertakluk pada 4% alokatur. Bertarikh: 26 September 2023. (ROSLAN BIN ABU BAKAR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Bharu. PIHAK-PIHAK: Bagi pihak Plaintif: Tetuan Azrul Hasyimi & Co, Lot 3392, Tingkat 1, Kg Kota Jalan Pasir Mas Salor 15100 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Bagi pihak Defendan: Tetuan Syukran Nordin, Lot 3063 (A), Wisma Cikgu Hamid Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra Kubang Kerian 16150 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.