476 Malayan Law Journal [2017] 1 MLJ by the prison authorities but was called off just prior to that. The reasons or at whose instance it was called off were not disclosed. [9] The suit was filed on 11 June 2014. By that time the appellant had been in detention for more than 17 years (since 1997) and on the death row (in solitary confinement) for some 14 years. A B [10] By way of the suit the appellant sought the following relief (para 18 of the statement of claim): (i) Declaration that the prolonged, inordinate and inexcusable detention of the plaintiff since 20 February 1997 is inhuman, cruel and/or degrading punishment; (ii) Declaration that the continued detention of the plaintiff is null and void and bad in law; C D (iii) That the sentence to hang until death of the plaintiff be set aside and/or quashed; (iv) In the alternative, that the execution of the sentence to hang until death of the plaintiff by the Defendants be quashed and/or set aside; (v) Declaration that the plaintiff be forthwith released from custody of the 1st and 2nd Defendants; (vi) That there be no order as to costs; and (vii) Further or other orders that this Honourable Court deems fit. E F [11] Enclosure 4 (High Court) was the appellant’s application for an interim stay to prevent the authorities from carrying out the appellant’s hanging until full disposal of the suit. This was dismissed by the High Court on 9 July 2014. [12] Enclosure 8 (High Court), the application of the respondents to strike out the suit, as earlier noted, was allowed by the High Court on 15 September 2014. [13] Before us on 13 April 2015 we allowed encl 8(a) (Court of Appeal), an application of the appellant to amend the memorandum of appeal. Learned senior federal counsel for the respondent had no objections to the same. [14] On 28 August 2015, the appellant had withdrawn their Enclosure 7(a) (Court of Appeal) application for discovery of further documents by the respondents after learned senior federal counsel had confirmed that all relevant medical records were already in the rekod rayuan and on learned senior federal counsel’s confirmation given to the court on 13 April 2015 that the respondents would concede that the appellant had been mentally affected as a G H I