Cases study for constitution Essay

Words: 1047
Pages: 5

[1977] 2 MLJ 187
In this case the appellant had been arrested and detained under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment. The appellant had not been produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest. He claimed damages but it was held that no action could be brought against the police officer as he was acting in compliance with a warrant issued by a competent authority. The appellant appealed but before the appeal was heard the Federal Constitution was amended by Act A354/76 which provided in effect that Article 5(4) of the Constitution shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted
…show more content…
The learned Judge rejected the application (see [1978] 2 MLJ 175) but in the course of the judgment made certain observations on the law to which the appellants took objection. He held in effect that the refusal or delay in granting a passport was tantamount to preventing the appellant from leaving the country and was in violation of his right of personal liberty under article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution. The appellants appealed and the respondent cross-appealed

[1962] 1 MLJ 169
The plaintiff (appellant on this appeal), an Inspector in the Royal Federation of Malaya Police Force, was first appointed on probation in 1951 and permanently appointed to the rank of Inspector on June 1, 1953. On July 7, 1958 he was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police. Having exhausted his departmental rights of appeal, he commenced these proceedings on October 1, 1959. He asked for a declaration and other consequential reliefs stating that his purported dismissal on July 7, 1958 was void and inoperative and of no effect and that he was still a member of the said Police Force because, (a) the dismissal had been effected by an authority subordinate to that which at the time of dismissal had power to appoint a member of the Police Force of equal rank and that this was contrary to art. 135(1) of the