Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 2 Nov 2012
Contents

Court of Appeal

Attorney-General v Vellama d/o Marie Muthu

Feedback & support

[2012] SGCA 64Case no. Civil Appeal No 35 of 2012 (Summons No 1817 of 2012)9 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Laws this judgment relies on

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):

  2. Procedural History

  3. [2] The appeal was filed in the following circumstances. On 2 March 2012, the respondent filed Originating Summons No 196 of 2012 (“OS 196/2012”) under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules of Court”) for leave to bring the said judicial review proceedings for the following orders:

  4. (a) declarations that “the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether to announce by-elections in Hougang Single Member Constituency (“SMC”)” and “the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion to decide when to announce by-elections in Hougang SMC and must do so within three months or within such reasonable time as [the] Court deems fit”; and

  5. (b) a mandatory order enjoining the Prime Minister to (i) “advise the President to issue a Writ of Election mandating by-elections in Hougang SMC pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed Sing) and Section 24(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2011 Rev Ed)” and (ii) “tender such advice … within three months or within such reasonable time as [the] Court deems fit”.

  6. [3] On 3 April 2012, the Judge granted leave for the respondent to proceed with her substantive application (“the Leave Order”). On 4 April 2012, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against the Leave Order (registered as Civil Appeal No 35 of 2012 (“CA 35/2012”)) and also Summons No 1676 of 2012 (“SUM 1676/2012”) for the hearing of the appeal to be expedited.

  7. [4] On 5 April 2012 (“the 5 April hearing”), the parties attended before a Judge of Appeal for the hearing of SUM 1676/2012 and the respondent’s counsel, Mr M Ravi (“Mr Ravi”), argued that CA 35/2012 could only be heard after the Judge had issued his grounds of decision for OS 196/2012 (“the GD”). The Judge of Appeal adjourned the matter until after the Judge had issued the GD.

  8. [5] The GD was issued on 9 April 2012 (see Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 1033) and parties attended before the Judge of Appeal on 12 April 2012. Mr Ravi raised the preliminary objection that the Notice of Appeal was improperly filed as the appellant had not obtained leave to appeal from the Judge. The Judge of Appeal did not rule on the preliminary objection on the ground that the proper procedure was for the respondent to take out a separate application to strike out the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, the Judge of Appeal made an order for the hearing of CA 35/2012 to be expedited and heard in the week of 14 May 2012. The hearing of CA 35/2012 was subsequently fixed for hearing on 16 May 2012.

  9. [6] On 13 April 2012, the respondent filed Summons No 1817 of 2012 (“SUM 1817/2012”) to strike out the Notice of Appeal on the ground that no leave had been obtained from the Judge to appeal against the Judge’s decision in OS 196/2012.

  10. [7] On 9 May 2012, the President, upon the advice of the Prime Minister, issued the Writ of Election for the Single Member Constituency of Hougang (“the Hougang SMC”). On the same day, the Elections Department of the Prime Minister’s Office issued a press release announcing that 16 May 2012 would be Nomination Day and that Polling Day would be 26 May 2012 if more than one candidate stood nominated for the Hougang SMC by-election at the close of nominations on Nomination Day.

  11. [8] On 11 May 2012, the respondent offered by way of letter (“the conditional offer”) to the appellant to withdraw her proceedings for judicial review under OS 196/2012, and SUM 1817/2012, on the conditions that:

  12. (a) the appellant withdraws CA 35/2012; and

  13. (b) the appellant does not seek any costs against the respondent.

  14. [10] On 14 May 2012, the appellant informed the Court of Appeal and the respondent by letter that the appellant would be withdrawing the appeal against the Leave Order at the hearing on 16 May 2012.

  15. [12] We reserved judgment on the issue until after the substantive hearing under OS 196/2012 was heard and decided. The substantive hearing under OS 196/2012 was eventually heard by the Judge under Summons No 2639 of 2012 (“SUM 2639/2012”) which the respondent filed on 29 May 2012 in accordance with O 53 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court.

  16. Costs of this appeal