MUNIAMAH A/P RAMAN v Kerajaan Malaysia

aa-21ncvc-5-03-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 July 2025 • AA-21NCvC-5-03/2020 • 41 min read
39 cases cited (0 SG, 39 foreign)

Catchwords

PRISON: Duties of prison authorities – Breach of statutory and constitutional duty – Convicted prisoner taken into custody healthy – Found dead at Tapah Prison with amputations and untreated infection – Failure to provide timely medical attention – Whether breach of Prisons Act 1995, Prisons Regulations 2000 and Lock-up Rules 1953 established – Whether constitutional right to life under Art. 5(1) Federal Constitution violated – Whether adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 to be drawn for non-production of CCTV TORT: Negligence – Duty of care – Non-delegable duty owed by custodial authorities – Prison officers and medical staff failing to treat necrotising fasciitis and notify family – Whether systemic neglect and omissions materially contributed to death – Whether Government vicariously liable under ss.5 & 6 Government Proceedings Act 1956 TORT: Misfeasance in public office – Elements to be proven – Suppression of evidence and reckless indifference by public officers – Whether omissions amount to deliberate misconduct– Whether estate of deceased entitled to aggravated damages notwithstanding prohibition of exemplary damages under s.8(2) Civil Law Act 1956

Judges (1)

Moses Susayan Delivered

Counsel (6)

Saibullah M V Nathan & Co Firm M. Visvanathan Counsel Plaintiff Pushan Qin Nathan Counsel Plaintiff Sanjay Nathan Counsel Plaintiff Siti Aishah binti Ramlan Counsel Defendant Siti Norashikin Hassanor Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Kerajaan Malaysia Defendant Muniamah a/p Raman Plaintiff

Case Significance

MUNIAMAH A/P RAMAN v Kerajaan Malaysia is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 8, 2025 (citation: aa-21ncvc-5-03-2020). The case was decided by Moses Susayan.

What was the outcome of MUNIAMAH A/P RAMAN v Kerajaan Malaysia?

MUNIAMAH A/P RAMAN v Kerajaan Malaysia is a High Court decision dated July 8, 2025. The case was heard by Moses Susayan. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
s 114(g)
Federal Constitution
Art 5 Art 5(1)
Penal Code (Cap 574)

Cases Cited (39)

UK (4)
[1990] 1 All ER 568 [2000] 1 AC 360 [2000] 2 WLR 1220 [2003] UKHL 51
AU (1)
[2005] HCA 76
MY (33)
[1996] 1 MLJ 261 [1996] 2 AMR 1617 [1996] 2 CLJ 771 [2009] 1 AMR 509 [2009] 1 CLJ 663 [2009] 1 MLJ 1 [2009] AMEJ 0230 [2010] 6 CLJ 712 [2014] 9 CLJ 15 [2015] 1 MLJ 353 [2017] 5 AMR 270 [2017] 5 CLJ 84 [2017] 8 AMR 829 [2017] 9 MLJ 300 [2018] 1 CLJ 585 [2018] 3 MLJ 184 [2018] 4 MLJ 133 [2018] 8 CLJ 529 [2018] AMEJ 0403 [2019] 12 MLJ 1 [2019] 8 AMR 325 [2020] 1 CLJ 337 [2021] 3 MLJ 365 [2021] 4 AMR 529 [2021] 6 CLJ 157 [2022] 5 AMR 621 [2022] 5 MLJ 337 [2022] 8 CLJ 591 [2024] 11 MLJ 488 [2024] 7 CLJ 916 [2024] AMEJ 1309 [2025] AMEJ 0700 [2025] MLJU 901
IN (1)
(1993) 2 SCC 746

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (aa-21ncvc-5-03-2020)