Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan, representing Indira, said the date was fixed during case management today. The Attorney-General’s Chambers appeared for the government in this civil action.
Earlier this year, Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali ordered a full trial for Indira’s suit on grounds that there were issues that needed to be ventilated at a full hearing.
“Although the defendants (government and police) in this striking-out application are correct in highlighting that the suit by her may not be based on the alleged nonfeasance in respect of the recovery order, the suit in my view may still proceed vis-a-vis the committal order.
“Contrary to the government’s assertions, this suit discloses a reasonable cause of action as the tort of nonfeasance under Malaysian law is recognised under Section 5 of the Government Proceedings Act, that states the government is liable in tort when any public officer commits any wrongful act, neglect or default in relation to a duty imposed by law.
“This does not, however, bar her (Indira) from instituting a civil claim to seek damages for the loss she claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged nonfeasance of the defendants in respect of the mandamus and committal order,” he said in his ruling on July 16.
Nazlan had said the court was mindful that “every Malaysian has a constitutional right of access to justice under the Federal Constitution and the effect of striking out a claim is to completely deprive a plaintiff from having their day in court”.
The trial was scheduled to be heard on Dec 15, but has now been vacated pending the appeals court’s decision.
Indira filed her suit last year, citing police inaction in executing the warrant against her former husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah. She is seeking damages and a declaration that the inspector-general of police (IGP) had committed a tort of nonfeasance in public office.
The Federal Court had, in 2016, instructed the IGP to execute the warrant of committal against Riduan after he was found guilty of contempt by refusing to hand over their daughter, Prasana.
Prasana was taken away from her mother in 2010.
The government wanted to strike out her suit on grounds that it was frivolous and an abuse of the court process, claiming she had wrongly commenced the civil action. It also said her judicial review against the government was still pending at the Ipoh High Court.