Altantuya Civil Suit: Appeal Court Cuts Damages to RM1.4 Million, Government Cleared of Liability

The Court of Appeal’s latest ruling reshapes one of Malaysia’s most closely watched civil cases, reducing compensation awarded to Altantuya Shaariibuu’s family and removing government responsibility for the 2006 killing.

PUTRAJAYA : Nearly two decades after the brutal killing of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, the Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark decision that significantly alters the outcome of the long-running civil lawsuit filed by her family.

In a unanimous ruling, the appellate court reduced the damages payable to Altantuya’s family from RM5 million to RM1.4 million, while at the same time setting aside findings that held the Malaysian government vicariously liable for her death. The decision marks a major shift from the Shah Alam High Court’s 2022 judgment, which had imposed liability on the state and awarded higher compensation.

The appellate bench ruled that although Altantuya’s killing was undeniably horrific, the original damages award was excessive and not sufficiently grounded in established principles governing civil compensation. The court recalculated the sum based on loss of dependency and aggravated damages, ultimately arriving at a lower figure that it deemed more proportionate.

Crucially, the court also found that the government could not be held responsible for the actions of the two former police officers convicted of murdering Altantuya. According to the judges, the officers were not acting within the scope of their official duties at the time of the crime, and therefore their conduct could not be attributed to the state under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

Altantuya was murdered in October 2006 in a case that shocked the nation and drew international attention. Her death, which involved the use of military-grade explosives, became one of Malaysia’s most controversial criminal cases. Former police officers Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar were convicted of the murder, with their convictions later upheld by the Federal Court.

The civil suit was filed by Altantuya’s parents and her son, who sought damages for emotional distress, loss of financial support and the circumstances surrounding her death. Initially, they pursued a much larger claim, arguing that the killing had permanently shattered their lives and that state institutions bore responsibility due to the involvement of law enforcement officers.

While the Court of Appeal acknowledged the severe suffering endured by Altantuya’s family, it emphasised that civil courts must distinguish between moral outrage and legal responsibility. The judges stressed that compensation must be assessed according to legal standards, not the public shock generated by the crime.

The ruling brings partial closure to a case that has lingered in the legal system for years, though it may not be the final chapter. Legal observers note that the family still has the option of seeking leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which would reopen debate over both the damages awarded and the government’s role.

For now, the decision underscores the complexities of assigning liability in cases involving public officials, and it highlights the limits of civil law in addressing tragedies that have left deep scars on the nation’s collective memory.