1. ) PERSATUAN PERLINDUNGAN HAIWAN KLUANG, JOHOR 2. ) NASIR BIN A AZIZ v 1. ) MAJILIS PERBANDARAN KLUANG 2. ) YANG DIPERTUA MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KLUANG PENCELAH Jabatan Peguam Negara

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict three-month time limit for judicial review applications under Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, and a court's discretion to withhold a costs order against a public-interest applicant even where leave is refused.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru, delivered by Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor J, concerns an application for leave to apply for judicial review brought by an animal-protection society and an individual against the Majlis Perbandaran Kluang (the Kluang Municipal Council) and its President, with the Attorney General's Chambers intervening. The application challenged the council's conduct on or around early February 2025 in catching and disposing of stray dogs — and in confining dogs without adequate water or food — said to be in breach of the Akta Kebajikan Haiwan 2015 (the Animal Welfare Act 2015) and of the standard operating procedure (SOP) for the capture and disposal of stray dogs issued under a ministerial circular. Leave was sought under Aturan 53 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012).

The Court examined whether there was in fact a decision or action of the council that reflected the catching and disposal of stray dogs otherwise than in accordance with the SOP. It found nothing to show that the capture and disposal had been carried out in breach of the SOP, save that any conduct not placing the dogs in cages as required by the fifth schedule to the SOP would have occurred on 4 February 2025. That timing was decisive for the leave application.

The Court held that, measured from the relevant events, the application for leave — filed only on 7 May 2025 — was plainly outside the three-month period prescribed by Order 53 rule 4 and had to be dismissed. It dismissed the application for leave, but made no order as to costs against the applicants, taking into account their role in the wider public interest of ensuring justice for protected animals. The judgment is a useful illustration of the strict three-month time limit for applications for judicial review under Order 53 rule 4, and of a court's discretion to withhold a costs order against a public-interest applicant even where leave is refused.