The group, led by former chief minister Musa Aman, filed the leave for judicial review on Aug 3, seeking an injunction to the dissolution of the assembly.
They also questioned the written request from Shafie Apdal, who is now caretaker chief minister, to Juhar for the dissolution of the assembly.
Judicial commissioner Leonard David Shim struck out the application on grounds that the governor’s actions were not justiciable in a court of law.
On Aug 17, Shim heard oral submissions from Tengku Fuad Ahmad, the counsel representing the group, the state Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the senior federal counsel.
The High Court had wanted further arguments on whether it had the judicial authority to hear and decide on the challenge to the governor’s authority to dissolve the state assembly.
Today, it examined the written reply submissions by Fuad on the assemblymen’s locus standi to challenge Juhar’s decision.
State Attorney-General Brenndon Keith Soh said the case had been dismissed against the respondents.
“The court found that the governor’s decision was non-justiciable,” he told reporters after the ruling, adding that the first and second respondents were found to have acted in accordance with the state constitution.
The dissolution paved the way for a snap election in the state, with Sept 26 set for polling day and nomination day on Sept 12.
The 33 assemblymen had named Juhar as the first respondent and Shafie, the Election Commission (EC) and the state government as the second, third and fourth respondents respectively.
Soh, representing the first, second and fourth respondents, was allowed by the court to appear for the review application hearing.
Fuad said they would appeal against the ruling, adding that the appeal was sent five minutes after the judgment was made.
In his one-hour ruling, Shim said the court found that Shafie had acted within his constitutional right in asking Juhar to dissolve the state legislative assembly.
He also said Juhar had acted within the ambit of his power in dissolving the assembly.
Adding that the dissolution and proclamation were not amenable to judicial review, he said the leave application was refused.
Soh meanwhile said the court had been very careful in delivering its grounds.
“(The court) found that both the first and second respondents acted within their constitutional powers and within constitution limits, therefore there was nothing to suggest there was a breach of the state constitution.”
Therefore, he added, the decision to grant a dissolution and the proclamation issued were not justiciable by the court as these were matters of high policy.
“Discretion is given to the governor to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution, and it was done properly in accordance with the law.
“The dissolution is therefore valid and constitutional. There should not be any uncertainty over whether a state election should continue or not.”
Soh, for whom this was his first case as state AG, also said there was no application for a stay to stop the election, adding that the EC had a duty to ensure that the state polls are held within 60 days of the dissolution.
Acknowledging the right to freedom of speech, he nonetheless said the court’s decision should be respected by all.
“Today was not about the lawyers, but about upholding the state constitution and about the people of Sabah.
“This is proof that democracy still exists in Sabah,” he said.
Fuad said the court found that the 33 applicants had the legal standing to bring the matter to court, and that the judge appeared to have found that Shafie had lost the majority.
“So he had only two choices, to resign or request for the dissolution,” he added.
“Unfortunately, there were two words from the judge on which we disagreed, which were the words ‘advise’ and ‘request’. We will take this to the Court of Appeal because in Sabah, we do not take the view that they are the same.
“The fight continues as we have not given up, and I believe my clients have not given up, either.”