Students win unusual lawsuit against 'absent' teacher, get RM150,000 in damages
SHAH ALAM - Three former students have won an extraordinary lawsuit against their English language teacher for missing seven months of class in 2017.
The High Court judge, Leonard David Shim, ruled in their favour.
The students Rusiah Sabdarin, Nur Natasha Allisya Hamali and Calvina Angayung, all 22 years old, who were in Form Four Sports Science (4SS) at SMK Taun Gusi in Kota Belud, took their former instructor, Mohd Jainal Jamran, and four others to court, alleging that their constitutional rights to education were violated.
The lawsuit was filed on December 7, 2020, naming Jainal as the first defendant.
The then-principal of the school, Suid Hanapi, was designated as the second defendant, while the director-general of the Education Ministry, the education minister and the government were named as the third, fourth, and fifth defendants, respectively.
The students were represented by Counsel Sherzali Herza Asli while the defendants were represented by senior federal attorney Mohd Hafizi Abd Halim and federal counsel Fazrul Fardiansyah Abdul Kadir.
The court found that the first defendant's absences corresponded to the dates recorded by the Sabah State Education Department (JPNS).
It also determined that the second defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to exercise disciplinary control and supervision over the first defendant despite being aware of his absenteeism since May 2017.
"The evidence of the second defendant that he was only informed about the first defendant's absenteeism in November 2017 is not credible, and the court finds the second defendant to be an unreliable witness, " it was reported in NST.
"As the court has found that the first and second defendants are liable for negligence and breach of statutory duty, the third to fifth defendants are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the first and second defendants," the judge ruled.
There is evidence that the defendants were negligent and breached their statutory duties.
"However, the evidence does not suggest a malicious intent to harm the plaintiffs or a reckless disregard for the possibility of harming the plaintiffs or the students in Class 4SS."
The court concluded that the claim for misfeasance in public office was not substantiated on a balance of probability.
They also sought a ruling that the defendants' actions constituted misfeasance in public office and determination that the defendants breached the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to education granted by Article 5 read in conjunction with Article 12 of the Federal Constitution.
The plaintiffs called ten witnesses, while only three testified for the defendants during the hearing, which began on September 5 2022 and ended in January of this year.
