Case analysis: Cause of Action & Cause of action must be complete

a) Dr Shafie Bin Abu Bakar v Pegawai Pengurus Pilihan Raya N 26 Bangi — Mohd Zakri
Bin Hj Hussin & Ors And Other Petitions (No.2), [2005] 2 MLJ 149

Facts : Dr Shafie Bin Abu Bakar, the petitioner, challenged the election results of the N 26 Bangi
constituency, alleging irregularities and non-compliance with election laws. The main cause of
action in this case was the violation of the petitioner's right to a free and fair election, as
guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. The petitioner claimed that the election
process was marred by various irregularities, including vote-buying, intimidation of voters, and
tampering with ballot boxes. The petitioner sought several reliefs, including a declaration that the
election results were null and void, an order for a fresh election, and damages for the loss
suffered as a result of the irregularities.

Issue : The cause of action that was completed in this case was the court's determination of
whether the election process was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the
irregularities alleged by the petitioner had a material impact on the outcome of the election. The
court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and
documentary evidence, to assess the validity of the petitioner's claims.

Held : Ultimately, the court found that there were indeed irregularities in the election process,
including instances of vote-buying and intimidation. The court concluded that these irregularities
had a material impact on the outcome of the election and declared the election results null and
void. The court ordered a fresh election to be conducted in the N 26 Bangi constituency.

In summary, the cause of action in this case was the violation of the petitioner's right to a free
and fair election, and the completed cause of action was the court's determination of the validity
of the petitioner's claims and the subsequent declaration of the election results as null and void.

b) Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12

Facts: The Ministry of Works issued a Letter of Intent to United Engineers Berhad
(UEM)indicating that the Government of Malaysia was prepared to enter into a contract with
UEM in respect of the construction and maintenance of North and South Highway. Mr Lim Kit
Siang, an Opposition member (plaintiff) claimed that UEM was owned and controlled by UMNO
and the leader took part in the Cabinet deliberations which relate to the same project, thus the
award to UEM was done in an improper and unfair manner. Therefore, he applied for an interim
injunction at the Penang High Court which was dismissed. The respondent appealed to the
Supreme Court and although none of the defendants had entered appearance, they were served
with the record of appeal and were represented by counsel at the hearing of the appeal. The
Supreme Court allowed the appeal. On the other hand, UEM and the government prayed that the
interim injunction to bestruck out on ground that there is no reasonable cause of action but was
dismissed by the High Court. Later, UEM and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:1. Whether the respondent/plaintiff has a cause of action to maintain the suit against UEM?

Held:

1. The Supreme Court by majority allowed the appeal on the ground that there is noreasonable
cause of action in the respondent’s statement of claim which enable him tomaintain the suit
against UEM.

2. Since the respondent has no cause of action against UEM, thus, the respondent’s suitagainst
UEM also cannot be maintained as it is vexatious and frivolous.

Ratio:

1. Cause of action is a statement of facts alleging that a plaintiff’s right, either at law orby statute,
has, in some way or another, been adversely affected or prejudiced by theact of a defendant in an
action.

2. The respondent has not been adversely affected since he has not shown that he hasany
recognizable legal right which has been infringed. He has not suffered any damage peculiar to
himself.

3. The action brought by the respondent against UEM and the government is for adeclaratory
judgment under O 15 r 16 of the Rules of High Court 1980 and the court's power to make
declaratory judgements must be confined to a justiciable issue andUEM is a necessary party to
the proceedings because courts recognized that persons who are or may be directly prejudiced by
a declaration made by the courts in their absence should be made parties to the suit.

4. The respondent does not have legal relationship with UEM, whereby he is a complete stranger
to the company and not a shareholder. Further, he does not have any direct or indirect interest in
the affairs of the company nor has the company done any wrong to the respondent.

5. The refusal to grant such injunction is also in line with S.54(k) of the Specific Relief Act
whereby the respondent has no personal interest in such matter, either legally or politically.

6. Since it cannot be shown that the respondent rights have been adversely affected,therefore the
respondent’s suit against UEM cannot be maintained. Therefore, there is no question of the
respondent’s entitlement to a remedy of injunction

c) Letang v Cooper [1961 L. No. 296] [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, [1965] 1 Q.B. 232

In the case of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, the plaintiff, Mrs. Letang, was sunbathing on
a public beach when the defendant, Mr. Cooper, negligently drove his car over her foot, causing
injury. Mrs. Letang sued Mr. Cooper for damages.

Cause of Action:

The cause of action in this case is negligence. Mrs. Letang alleged that Mr. Cooper breached his
duty of care towards her by driving his car over her foot, resulting in injury.

Elements of Negligence:

To establish a claim of negligence, the following elements must be proven:

Duty of Care: The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff.

Breach of Duty: The defendant breached that duty of care.

Causation: The defendant's breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injury.

Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the defendant's breach.

Analysis of Letang v Cooper:

In Letang v Cooper, the court found that Mr. Cooper had breached his duty of care towards Mrs.
Letang by driving his car over her foot. The court held that a reasonable person would have taken
precautions to avoid causing harm to someone sunbathing on a public beach. The court also
found that Mr. Cooper's negligence was the direct cause of Mrs. Letang's injury. As a result, Mrs.
Letang was awarded damages for her pain, suffering, and medical expenses.

Conclusion:

The cause of action in Letang v Cooper was negligence. The court found that Mr. Cooper
breached his duty of care towards Mrs. Letang by driving his car over her foot, causing injury.
This case highlights the importance of exercising reasonable care to avoid causing harm to
others.

d) Lim Kean v Choo Koon (1970) 1 MLJ 158

Facts : The plaintiff claimed for recovery of excess rent paid to his landlord. An application had
been made to the Rent Assessment Board and an order was made by the board on February 15,
1966 fixing the maximum recoverable rent at $50. The plaintiff claimed the excess paid from
November 15, 1957 to January 31, 1966. The defendant contended that the claim was barred by
limitation.

Held : the period of limitation in this case commenced to run from the date of the order of the
Rent Assessment Board which was the date when the cause of action accrued.

Principle / Ratio : A cause of action accrues when there is in existence a person who can sue
and another who can be sued and all the facts have happened which are material to be proved to
entitle the plaintiff to succeed.

e) Taib bin Awang v Mohamad bin Abdullah & Ors (1983) 2 MLJ 413

Facts : The plaintiff brought an action in a civil court against the defendants for maliciously
prosecuting him in the Kadi Court. When the plaintiff was prosecuted in the Kadi’s Court, he
was found guilty and was sentenced to two weeks. The plaintiff was appealed on the decision of
the KadiCourt. Before the appeal was disposed of he brought this action in the civil court.

Held : The court held that for the plaintiff to succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, he
must prove that the proceedings complained of terminated in his favour. Since the appeal
had not been disposed of, his action was held to be premature.

Principle / Ratio : The above case clearly illustrates that to prove a cause of action, all the
separate elements that give rise to the claim must be proven to have happened. To claim
malicious prosecution, one of the important facts that need to be satisfied is, prosecution ended
up in the plaintiff's favour. Failure to establish this fact, the cause of action is still premature.

f) Caxton (Kelang) Sdn Bhd v Susan Joan Labrooy & Anor [1988] 2 MLJ 604

Facts : In this case, Caxton (Kelang) Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff) entered into a contract with a
contractor for the construction of a building. The defendant, Susan Joan Labrooy, was the
architect appointed by the plaintiff to supervise the construction. The plaintiff claimed that the
defendant had breached her duty of care in supervising the construction, resulting in defects in
the building.

Issue / Held : The main issue was whether the defendant, as an architect, owed a duty of care to
the plaintiff, who was not a party to the contract between the plaintiff and the contractor. The
court had to determine whether the plaintiff had the right to sue the defendant for negligence.
The court held that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, even though there was
no direct contractual relationship between them.

Principle / Ratio : The court applied the principle of "assumption of responsibility," which
means that if a person voluntarily assumes a responsibility towards another, they can be held
liable for any negligence in fulfilling that responsibility.

g) Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v Datuk
Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor [2009] 4 CLJ 329 - not applicable when the compliance of
rules is mandatory
The issue arose was whether the requirement of showing such efforts that have been made to
eefect service of writ under O6 R7 (2A) ROC is mandatory perquisite to the exercise of
discretion under O6 R7 (2). Per Zaki Tun Azmi , CJ in his delivering the judgment in court ,
before the court consider to exercise its discretion to renew writ, O.6 r.7 (2A) must satisfied that
the applicant had the obligatory to show inter alia , that efforts had been made to serve the
defendant within one month of the date of the issue of the writ. Applicant must use all due
diligence to effect service at the earliest possible time. This can be said that the O.6 R7 (2A)
must be strictly enforced as required by the rule.