STEPHEN KALONG NINGKAN v TUN ABANG HAJI OPENG AND TAWI SLI

On the 16th June 1966, the Governor of Sarawak had received a letter signed by 21
members of the Council Negeri stating that they no longer had any confidence in the
plaintiff, their Chief Minister. The Governor informed the plaintiff that from representations
he had received he was satisfied that the plaintiff had ceased to command the confidence of
the Council Negeri and invited the plaintiff to resign.
The plaintiff in his reply informed the Governor that the Governor's views as to the loss of
confidence of the members of the Council Negeri in the plaintiff was not supported by the
meeting of the Council Negeri held on the 14th June and the plaintiff in the same letter
requested that he be supplied with the names of the persons who had signed the
representations.
In reply to this letter the Governor informed the plaintiff that as the plaintiff had refused to
tender the resignation of members of the Supreme Council, in accordance with Article 7(1)
of the Constitution of the State of Sarawak, he declared that the plaintiff and other
members of the Supreme Council had ceased to hold office and appointed the second
defendant as Chief Minister forthwith. The Governor also forwarded a list of the names of
persons who had signed the representations as requested by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff then commenced proceedings against the Governor and the second defendant.
Held: The Governor of Sarawak was limited by Article 6(3) of the Constitution of Sarawak to
appointing as Chief Minister a member of the Council Negeri who in his judgment was likely
to command the confidence (and approval) of the Council Negeri and therefore it followed
by section 21 of the Interpretation Ordinance that only when the Council Negeri had shown
lack of confidence (and lack of approval) could the Governor's power to dismiss, if it exists,
be exercised. Under the provisions of the Sarawak Constitution lack of confidence may be
demonstrated only by a vote in the Council Negeri.
Secondly, if the Constitution of Sarawak could be construed as giving to the Governor a
power to dismiss the Chief Minister when he had refused to resign and failed to advise a
dissolution then in this case the plaintiff was never given a reasonable opportunity to tender
his resignation or to request for a dissolution.
TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA BIN DATU HARUN v TUN DATUK HAJI MOHAMED ADNAN
ROBERT, YANG DI-PERTUA NEGERI SABAH & DATUK JOSEPH PAIRIN KITINGAN
On the morning of April 22, 1985, after the State elections in Sabah, the plaintiff took the
prescribed oath of office of a Chief Minister before the first defendant. The same day the
first defendant purported to revoke the appointment as Chief Minister of the plaintiff. On
the same day, the first defendant appointed and swore in the second defendant as Chief
Minister.
The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the first defendant's revocation of the plaintiff's
appointment as Chief Minister and the appointment of the second defendant as the Chief
Minister were ultra vires the Constitution of Sabah. The plaintiff also claimed an injunction
to restrain the second defendant from exercising the powers of the Chief Minister.
Held:
The Head of State therefore cannot constitutionally exercise or make his judgment on the
appointment of a Chief Minister without taking into account the number of elected seats
secured by each and every political party and, for that matter, by the independent
candidates, in the election. It is clear that, if he omits to take into account the number of
seats obtained by any particular political party which participated in the election, it cannot
be said that he had exercised or made his judgment under Article 6(3) of the State
Constitution, for, if he did so, he would be acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally by
ignoring or not complying with the requirement, in particular of Article 6(3).
DATUK (DATU) AMIR KAHAR BIN TUN DATU HAJI MUSTAPHA v TUN MOHD SAID BIN
KERUAK YANG DI-PERTUA NEGERI SABAH & ORS
Following the Sabah state elections, Datuk Pairin was appointed Chief Minister of Sabah,
and other elected members from his party, including the plaintiff, were appointed to form
the State Cabinet.
After three members of the State Legislative Assembly defected from his party to the
opposition, Datuk Pairin requested the YDPN, the first defendant, to dissolve the Assembly
but the first defendant withheld his consent. Datuk Pairin later tendered his resignation as
Chief Minister of Sabah, but did not tender the resignation of the other members of his
Cabinet.
The first defendant appointed the second defendant as the new Chief Minister, and then
appointed the third to ninth defendants as the other members of the Cabinet.
The plaintiff sought a declaration that since there was no motion of confidence in the
Assembly against Datuk Pairin, his resignation was personal to him and did not affect the
appointment of the plaintiff as a Deputy Chief Minister. The plaintiff also sought a
declaration that the first defendant had acted ultra vires the provisions of the Sabah State
Constitution ('the Constitution') by appointing the third to ninth defendants as members of
the Cabinet when at all material times the appointments of the plaintiff and the other
Cabinet members had not been revoked nor had they resigned.
Held: The fact of a Chief Minister ceasing to command the confidence of a majority of the
members of the Assembly can be evidenced by various situations and circumstances. It
can be through the knowledge of the Chief Minister himself from the surrounding
circumstances or it can be through the actual voting in the Assembly by its members...There
is nowhere in the Constitution to say that the only evidence of such fact must be through
the actual vote in the Assembly.
It follows, therefore, that if the Chief Minister does not tender the resignation of the other
members of his Cabinet wherein the Cabinet is to be treated as dissolved under the
circumstances envisaged by Article 7(1) of the Constitution, their offices are deemed to have
been vacated.
By formality, the Chief Minister is required to tender the resignation of the Cabinet but if he
chooses to tender only his resignation, the other members of his Cabinet cannot say that
they retain the office because the Chief Minister does not tender their resignation. The
blame, if any, lies upon the Chief Minister for not complying with the requirements of
Article 7(1).
DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM v PERDANA MENTERI, MALAYSIA & ANOR
The plaintiff was, at the material time, the Deputy Prime Minister and also Minister of
Finance but was served with a letter from the Prime Minister informing him that his
appointment as Deputy PM and Minister of Finance was revoked with immediate effect.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants on the ground that the revocation of
appointment of the plaintiff as Deputy PM and Minister of Finance was not done in
accordance with the requirement of Article 43(5) of the Federal Constitution.
The defendants then applied for the plaintiff's originating summons and affidavit in support
be struck out on the ground that they did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and
they were an abuse of the process of the court.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the letter of revocation sent to the plaintiff appeared as
if the PM was dismissing the plaintiff, whereas the PM was not the alter ego of the King.
However, counsel for the defendants submitted that with the conveying of the PM's
decision to the King coupled with the letter of revocation sent to the plaintiff, the act of
revocation was completed, and the procedure adopted met the requirement of Aritcle
43(5).

Held: As there was no prescribed format of requiring any particular person to sign the letter
of revocation, the PM himself could sign the letter to convey the decision to the plaintiff.
Although there was nothing in the PM's letter to show that the letter was written at the
request of the King, the King had been advised and informed about the decision as
evidenced by the affidavit of the private secretary. The affidavit evidence lent support to the
statement in the PM's letter that he had informed the King about the revocation. The letter
of revocation had satisfied the requirement of Article 43(5) of the Federal Constitution.
The judge stated that "common prudence dictates that as the King could only act on advice,
the PM must first formulate a decision to dismiss the plaintiff. Next step is for the PM to
inform the King about his decision. Thereafter, the decision is to be conveyed to the
plaintiff."
DATO’ SERI IR HJ MOHAMMAD NIZAR JAMALUDDIN V DATO’ SERI ZAMBRY ABDUL KADIR
After the general election, Pakatan Rakyat ('PR') won 31 seats out of the 59 seats in the
State Legislative Assembly of Perak ('LA'). The remaining seats went to Barisan Nasional
('BN').
The appellant was then appointed the Chief Minister of Perak ('the CM') by the Sultan of
Perak ('HRH').
On 5 February 2009 three members of the LA declared and informed HRH that they no
longer supported the PR and instead threw their support behind BN.
The appellant then had an audience with HRH on the same day where he was informed that
his request for dissolution of the LA was rejected by HRH. He was then directed to tender
the resignation of the executive council, as he no longer commanded the confidence of the
majority of the members of the LA. The appellant did not comply with the direction given by
HRH.

On 6 February 2009 HRH appointed the respondent as the new CM, replacing the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the decision of HRH, the appellant claimed that there had been no motion
of no confidence against him in the LA and that he had not resigned from the post of CM.
Held: There is nothing in the State Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the
CM may only be established through a vote in the LA. Evidence of loss of confidence in the
CM may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided, they are properly
established. Such sources should include the admission by the CM himself and/or
representations made by members of the LA that the CM no longer enjoys the support of
the majority of the members of the LA. There was evidence of such admission by the
appellant himself and from the demonstration of support by the 31 members of the LA for
BN, thus, giving BN a clear majority in the LA. All these clearly pointed to the loss of
confidence of the majority of the members of the LA in the leadership of the appellant as
the CM.
The question of confidence in the CM may be determined by means other than a vote of no
confidence in the LA; and as for the third question, if the CM refuses to tender the
resignation of the executive council under the State Constitution, the CM and the executive
council members are deemed to have vacated their respective offices.