Share:

Print

TORT
Misfeasance in public office – Meaning of ‘public officer’ – Whether the former Prime Minister or any other Minister is a public officer within section 5 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and could be sued for alleged misfeasance in public office


Tony Pua Kiam Wee v Government of Malaysia & Datuk Seri Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak
Civil Appeal No: 01(i)-44-11/2018(W), Federal Court

see the grounds of judgment here

Facts The appellant brought an extraordinary claim against the then (and now former) Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Najib bin Tun Abdul Haji Razak (‘Najib Razak’) and the Government of Malaysia (the ‘Government’). The thrust of the claim was that Najib Razak had committed misfeasance in public office in relation to a sovereign fund established for the economic benefit of Malaysia and the Malaysian people, known as 1MDB. More particularly, it was alleged that the then Prime Minister had abused his public office by personally benefitting and/or profiting from the receipt of monies from the 1MDB fund, comprising public funds. In response to this claim, the defendants sought to strike out Tony Pua’s claim under Order 18 Rule19[1] of the Rules of Court 2012. In the High Court the claim was struck out, on the ground that Najib Razak was not a ‘public officer’ or a ‘person holding public office’ as contemplated under the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

Issues The main issue is whether the former Prime Minister or any other Minister is a public officer within section 5
[2] of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (‘the Act’) and could be sued for alleged misfeasance in public office.

Held The Federal Court held that Najib Razak can be sued for alleged misfeasance in public office as it ruled that a Prime Minister or any other Minister are public officers within Section 5 of the Act as there was no express legislative intent in either the Federal Constitution or the Interpretation Acts which alters and substitutes the common law tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court for trial.

 

[1] Striking out pleadings and endorsements
[2] Liability of the Government in tort: “…any public officer acting or purporting in good faith to be acting in pursuance of a duty imposed by law shall be deemed to be the agent of and to be acting under the instructions of the Government.”