The ex-parte application, through e-filing by lawyer Marcel Jude Joseph, would be heard on Oct 21.

Vincent Singgoh, 53, named the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (CVLB) and police as the first and second respondents.

Singgoh is seeking an order of prohibition, a declaration as well as a mandatory injunction.

He wants to use the order of prohibition against the respondents to prevent them from using or relying on Section 33 of the Commercial Licensing Vehicles Act 1987 to do any of the following, i.e. prosecute or prohibit him from driving for Uber Technologies Inc, and from using the services of Uber Technologies Inc.

He also wants the declaration that it is unlawful or ultra vires for the respondents or their servants or agents to prosecute, prevent or prohibit him in any manner from driving for Uber Technologies Inc or use Uber Technologies Inc services.

Similarly, Singgoh is seeking the mandatory injunction to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from prosecuting, preventing or prohibiting him from driving or making drives for Uber Technologies Inc and/or making use of its services.

He is also seeking costs and other relief.

In an affidavit in support, Singgoh said he wants the judicial review to put his mind at ease.

He described a statement by the first respondent and action by the second respondent as retrospectively inaccurate and unlawful.

He was referring to a statement by the CVLB chairman in an online news portal on Oct 4, 2016 and the arrests of two Uber ride-sharers recently in the Sabah capital by police.

“It will cause me great anxiety and concern should I decide to make use of Uber services or if I decide to provide drives for the benefit of Uber,” he said.

He confirmed that he was registered with Uber Technologies Inc via its application as a driver and user.

He argued that under the law of privity of contract, any attempt by the respondents to prosecute him was unlawful and ultra vires.

He went on to say in the affidavit in support that a person who drives for Uber Technologies should not be subject to Section 33 of the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Act 1987 and become the subject of threats or acts of violence by third parties.

“It’s the responsibility of Uber Technologies to obtain the relevant licences under Section 33,” he said.

Singgoh referred to himself as an employee of Uber Technologies Inc and the passengers he intended to ferry and/or has ferried as the company’s customers.