Laporan KEPUTUSAN Kes MB Perak pada 22 Mei 2009

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN DI MALAYSIA

(BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)

RAYUAN SIVIL NO. W-01-112-2009

DATO’ DR. ZAMBRY BIN ABD KADIR …… PERAYU

LAWAN

DATO’ SERI IR. HAJI MOHAMMAD NIZAR BIN JAMALUDDIN …… RESPONDEN

DAN

PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA …… PENCELAH

KORAM : HAKIM : YA Dato' Md Raus bin Sharif, YA Datuk Zainun bt Ali dan YA Dato' Ahmad bin Hj Maarop.

PEGUAM PERAYU : Dato’ Cecil Abraham, Encik Sunil Abraham dan Cik Farah Shuhadah Razali

PEGUAM RESPONDEN : Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, Encik Ranjit Singh, Encik Mohamad Hanipa Maidin, Encik Leong Cheak Keong, Encik Edmond Bon Tai Soon, En Razlan Hadri, Encik Amer Hamzah Arshad, Encik Phillip Koh, Encik Chan Kok Cheong dan Zulqarnain Luqman.

PEGUAM PENCELAH : Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Tun Abdul Majid bin Tun Hamzah, Dato’ Kamaludin bin Md. Said, Puan Azizah binti Haji Nawawi, Encik Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh, Puan Suzana binti Atan, Puan Munahyza binti Mustafa dan Encik Andi Razalijaya bin A. Dadi.

PERKARA :

Perayu yang tidak berpuashati dengan keputusan YA Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Dato’ Abdul Aziz b. Abdul Rahim pada 11-5-2009 kini merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut yang memerintahkan bahawa Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman Responden dibenarkan tanpa kos.

Dalam masa yang sama, Responden turut memfailkan Notis Usul (Kand. 9A) permohonan untuk mengenepikan atau meminda atas terma-terma Perintah penggantungan perlaksanaan sementara menunggu rayuan bertarikh 12-5-2009.

KEPUTUSAN :

Mahkamah Rayuan secara majoriti membenarkan rayuan Perayu. Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi diketepikan. Tiada perintah mengenai kos. Notis Usul Responden (Kand. 9A) dibatalkan tanpa kos.

ALASAN KEPUTUSAN RINGKAS (dalam versi asal Bahasa Inggeris):

1. The granting or withholding a request for dissolution is a royal prerogative.

2. From the facts of the case, the request was made under Art. 16(6) and not under Art 36(2).

3. Under Art. 16(6), upon HRH the Sultan exercising his royal prerogative to withhold the consent for dissolution, the Respondent shall tender his resignation.

4. No mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution that provides for vote of no confidence to be made against the Respondent on the floor of Assembly.

5. From the facts, the Respondent had ceased to command the majority; we approve the decision of the learned High Court Judge in Amir Kahar’s case; Stephen Kalong Ningkan’s case, which was adopted by YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz is distinguishable.

6. The Sultan was correct in making enquiry to satisfy himself that the Respondent had ceased to command the majority confidence. Since the Respondent had ceased to command; thus the Sultan was right under Art. 16(2) in appointing the Appellant.

7. The Honourable Judge of the High Court had failed to properly and adequately appreciate the entire evidence before him, and that rendered the decision as wrong.