Dalam sistem keadilan Thailand dakwaan jenayah kejadian di atas akan dibatasi oleh had masa 20 tahun. Mengikut laporan di bawah pegawai tentera yang dituduh terlibat dalam kejadian berkenaan tidak hadir dalam perbicaraan menyebabkan kes tidak boleh diteruskan. Ketidakhadiran ini menimbulkan persoalan.
MOHD ISHA AWANG v. MOHAMAD IDRIS SERAMAL BARIS [2020] 9 CLJ 760
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; ABU BAKAR JAIS JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02(NCVC)(W)-2426-12-2018]
05 AUGUST 2020
An order of the Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating that a marriage is not valid under the Syarak must be presumed to have been made according to the legitimate powers of the said court and must be taken as valid until proven otherwise; and more, upon the same being properly tendered and marked as an exhibit, its contents must be taken as true and undisputed. This being the case, it is erroneous of the learned Judicial Commissioner, after having admitted the order and marked it as an exhibit, to have then compelled the defendant adducer to prove the authenticity of the document inter alia by calling or examining the maker(s) thereof. Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act 1950 allows the court to presume that such judicial and official act of the Syariah Court of Appeal has been regularly performed with the result that the marriage between the plaintiff and the second defendant herein, on the facts and the evidence, and in consonance with the order of the Syariah Court of Appeal, must be held to be invalid. It follows that the appellant's claim for damages against the first defendant for allegedly enticing his 'wife', the second defendant, must crumble and fail.
TORT
Enticement - Claim for - Plaintiff alleged first defendant enticed his wife from matrimonial home causing breakdown of familial relationship - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether claim for enticement ought to fail
EVIDENCE
Documents - Judicial separation - Order of - Whether there was valid marriage between plaintiff and wife - Whether there was order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents
FAMILY LAW
Judicial separation - Documents - Whether there was an order for judicial separation (faraq) from Syariah Court - Whether documents produced in court issued by Government department - Whether documents showed judicial and official acts had been performed - Whether Order of Syariah Court of Appeal adjudicating marriage between plaintiff and wife not valid according to 'syarak' made within court's powers - Whether presumption under s. 114(e) of Evidence Act 1950 applicable to documents - Whether documents proved marriage between plaintiff and wife dissolved by judicial separation
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgxwKjKqxQLRVzTKhVgrzVPzfmxGd
SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR; MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (INTERVENER) [2022] 3 CLJ 339
FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CASE NO: BKA-1-01-2021(W)]
21 FEBRUARY 2022
Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which seeks to give the Syariah courts the jurisdiction and power to hear and decide on judicial review, being a provision which the Selangor State Legislature (SSL) has no power or competency to make, is unconstitutional and void. The substantive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is strictly defined by Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; the issue of the absence of the power of judicial review or the power to grant public law remedies in Item 1 aside, it is plain that none of the limbs in Item 1 can be construed as conferring power on SSL to enact s. 66A or to enable the Syariah Court to engage in judicial review. This said, the judicial power of the Federation, of which the 'constitutional' and 'statutory' judicial review are a specie, is by constitutional design exclusively vested in the Civil Superior Courts, as to clothe them with supervisory jurisdiction over legislation passed by any Legislature, as well as the jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues or to issue public law remedies; the Syariah Courts, on the other hand, for not sharing the same constitutional guarantees of judicial independence as the Civil Superior Courts, are as a matter of constitutional policy incapable of exercising judicial power.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfTvmMfmKnpxcflNWqPqVDvf
“Judicial review is not merely procedural but a substantive and immutable component of judicial power - one which is inherent and which defines the very core function of an independent Judiciary. It is exclusively a judicial power of the civil superior courts.
Reading s. 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 as it stands and upon analysing the basis for judicial review in this country, I find that s. 66A of the ARIE 2003 is unconstitutional and void, as it is a provision which the SSLA has no power to make. I accordingly find that the petitioner has overcome the threshold of the presumption of constitutionality.” – per Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 CLJ 339
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGTBXkhHqnVpLbPjMRJvMzdnG
BERSIH & ADIL NETWORK SDN BHD & ORS v. TAN SRI DATO' HJ MAHIADDIN MD YASIN & ANOR; KHAIRIL NIZAM KHIRUDIN & ORS (INTERVENERS) AND ANOTHER CASE [2022] 7 CLJ 905
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD KAMAL MD SHAHID J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NOS: WA-24-6-02-2021 & WA-24-22-04-2021]
04 JULY 2022
The power to interpret constitutional provisions is not exclusive to the Federal Court. Under the constitutional scheme, the Federal Court is generally a court of last resort for all constitutional questions. It is only in a narrow category of exceptional cases - those expressly stipulated in art. 128(1) of the Federal Constitution - that such questions must be determined by the Federal Court at first instance
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQJrPngPbWgkPqjmZBNzXHlKr
Namun boleh bandingkan dengan kes ini.
TEO CHEE KONG v. PP [2021] 8 CLJ 29
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA; RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: S-06A-18-06-2018]
14 JUNE 2021
The power of the High Court under s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 is discretionary. The High Court is not duty bound to refer the constitutional questions posed by a party to the Federal Court in all cases. It is also unnecessary for the High Court to proffer any answer, 'negative' or 'affirmative' to the constitutional questions brought before it.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGkbDdlnmvtmmRFbWzTWgQQsNWL
PP v. AHMAD SAIFUL ISLAM MOHAMAD [2023] 2 CLJ 714
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA; HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: W-09-282-11-2021]
20 JANUARY 2023
Courts are bound to observe judicial hierarchy for the orderly development of legal rules as well as for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs. The doctrine of stare decisis provides certainty and uniformity in the law and stabilises the law, hence, is an indispensable foundation to a decision. The Court of Appeal, as the highest court to determine appeals in criminal matters emanating from subordinate courts, when faced with two conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal, ought to follow the later decision for there to be a finality and certainty in the law.
JURISDICTION
Court of Appeal - Powers and jurisdiction - Court of Appeal highest court to determine appeals for criminal matters originating from subordinate courts - Application of doctrine of stare decisis - Whether principles governing Federal Court in Dalip Bhagwan Singh v. PP equally applicable to Court of Appeal - Whether later decision prevailed over earlier decision - Whether Magistrate correct in following later decision of Court of Appeal
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcrrGNBhLgfNHCPgGbtvBTdvg
LOW OOI HOI v. PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR [2023] 5 CLJ 376
COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA; SEE MEE CHUN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-152-03-2021]
14 MARCH 2023
Giving reasons in a judgment is an essential requirement of the rule of law. A non-reasoned judgment could be held as a judgment not according to law. The rationale behind it is to provide a link between the facts and the decision made. More importantly, reasons introduce clarity to satisfy the party against whom the orders are made. In addition to that, a reasoned decision will act as a guard against any non-application of the mind and arbitrariness by the judge. Furthermore, reasons for judgment run parallel with the basic principle that justice must not only be done; it must also appear to be done.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGsmrHpTrGtpcJCfmLffCKQsnnB
MUHAMMAD RIFQI AMZAR FAIZO (A CHILD AND BRINGING THIS ACTION THROUGH HIS LITIGATION REPRESENTATIVE, FAIZO YAACOB) v. DR SIVAKUMAR SIVALINGAM & ORS [2023] 9 CLJ 609
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
SU TIANG JOO JC
[CASE NO: WA-23NCvC-89-09-2021]
27 SEPTEMBER 2023
The parties to an action before the court do not have the absolute right to withdraw a case on their own terms. The court has the power to take charge of each and every case registered with the court to oversee the administration of justice and where appropriate, refuse to accede to any term of settlement proposed by any party to the proceedings, in the interest of justice. The court should not act as a rubber stamp.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGwHLmHGWVVXCBcDzjZTffSfSnM
Undang-undang Sebagai Mekanisme Penyelesaian Pertikaian
Law as Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Kuliah Pada 7 Mac 2011
Bukan Penyelesaian Tapi Pengurusan Pertikaian
Pertikaian adalah perkara yang lumrah dalam penghidupan seharian manusia berpunca dari pelbagai faktor seperti ekonomi, politik, sosial dan juga emosi dan citarasa. Ini adalah kerana masyarakat dan negara berfungsi kerana perhubungan sesama manusia atau antara manusia dengan organisasi/kerajaan atau sesame organisasi/kerajaan. Oleh itu amatlah mustahak pertikaian ini diselesaikan, kerana tanpa penyelesaian masyarakat dan negara tidak dapat berfungsi dengan baik dan lancar. Dalam masyarakat bertamaddun atau madani (civil society) penyelesaian pertikaian hendaklah dibuat secara yang teratur dan berlandaskan kepada nilai-nilai sejagat ataupun sekurang-kurangnya kepada nilai dan standard yang diterima oleh masyarakat berkenaan. Dalam hubungan ini sejak dari dahulu lagi undang-undang merupakan mekanisme yang utama dalam penyelesaian konflik. Tidak dinafikan terdapat pelbagai lagi cara atau keadah penyelesaian konflik dalam masyarakat dan negara namum undang-undang nampaknya menjadi asas utama penyelesaian kerana proses dan pendekatannya diterima dan diakui baik sama ada secara langsung/rasmi mahupun secara konvension.
Memandangkan pendekatan undang-undang seperti yang dibincangkan di kuliah yang lalu bersifat menentukan hak serta melihat penyelesaian hanya kepada pertikaian yang dijadikan isu perundangan dan mementingkan keputusan sama ada salah atau benar, maka penyelesaian secara undang-undang dikatakan tidak menyelesai masalah atau pokok pertikaian secara memuaskan. Bahkan kadang-kadang penyelesaian undang akan menyebabkan bertambahnya lagi tekanan/persaingan/persengketaan. Sebagai contoh penyelesaian kes-kes kekeluargaan seperti perceraian atau hak jagaan anak tidak semestinya menyebabkan semua pihak berpuashati dan masalah kekeluargaan akan selesai. Namun pandangan ini mungkin tidak tepat memandangkan emosi manusia itu tidak akan atau sukar untuk menerima sesuatu yang tidak disukainya walaupun kehendaknya itu adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar atau bertentangan dengan nilai masyarakat disekelilingnya.
Disebabkan oleh kekurangan dari segi kepuasan ini ahli-ahli sosiologi perundangan tidak mengistilahkan mekanisme undang-undang sebagai penyelesaian pertikaian bahkan apa mereka menganggap apa cuba dilakukan oleh undang-undang untuk mengurangkan masalah atau tekanan daripada pertikaian daripada menjadi lebih parah melalui apa yang diistilah sebagai pengurusan konflik atau pertikaian (conflict regulation/management). Istilah dispute resolution juga dikenali dengan conflict resolution atau settlement. Manakala istilah dispute proceeding merujuk kepada proses awal penyelesaian pertikaian manakala istilah conflict of laws bermaksud percanggahan undang-undang yang boleh menimbulkan konflik. Dalam perbincangan perundangan conflict laws merupakan satu displin jurisprudens yang mempunyai prinsip-prinsip tertentu. Berasaskan kepada huraian ini dapat difahamkan terdapat tiga elemen dalam penyelesaian pertikaian iaitu pengurusan atau pemprosesan pertikaian, (2) penyelesaian/penyuraian dan (3) kepuasan/pengentasan tension yang menjadi punca kepada pertikaian berkenaan.
Punca dan Tahap-tahap Konflik/Pertikaian
Punca kepada konflik atau pertikaian adalah rasa tidak puashati (grievance) atau penentangan (resentment) kepada pihak lain terhadap sesuatu perkara yang berkaitan dengan hak atau tanggungjawab. Ia juga berpunca daripada persepsi bahawa keadilan tidak berlaku kepada diri seseorang akibat tindakan atau tinggalan seseorang atau pihak yang lain. Dalam pengajian sosio perundangan perasaan atau persepsi ini dikenali sebagai peringkat pra konflik (pre conflict stage). Di peringkat ini perasaan dan persepsi ini hanya terhad kepada satu pihak sahaja atau apa yang dikenali di peringkat monadic. Dalam sesetengah keadaan seperti yang akan dinyatakan nanti perasaan atau persepsi ini akan hilang atau diabaikan oleh pihak merasainya dan tiada konflik akan timbul sungguhpun ianya tidak bermakna masalah diselesaikan. Namun dalam banyak keadaan perasaan dan persepsi pihak yang menderitainya akan berhadapan dengan pihak kedua. Di peringkat ini berlakunya komunikasi antara dua pihak yang akan menzahirkan perkara-perkara yang selama ini dalam perasaan dan persepsi penderitanya. Di peringkat ini konfik dikatakan dyadic di mana pihak yang menderita akan berhadapan atau bersemuka dengan pihak yang dikatakan menjadi punca masalah untuk dizahirkan perasaan ketidakpuashatian tadi. Dalam sesetengah keadaan keazaman atau keberanian pihak yang menderita untuk berhadapan dengan pihak lain sudah merupakan satu perkara yang amat melegakan dan kadang-kadang boleh menjadikan penderita berpuashati dan tidak akan meneruskan lagi tindakannya. Oleh yang demikian dapatlah difahamkan bahawa tidak semua perselisihan faham akan membesar menjadi konflik atau pertikaian penuh (full blown dispute) kerana manusia yang mempunyai emosi dan naluri akan memilih jalan keluar yang tidak semestinya bersifat perundangan.
Sekiranya konflik di peringkat dyadic ini tidak diselesaikan maka campur tangan pihak ketiga diperlukan untuk menyelesaikannya. Konflik antara kedua-dua pihak ini akan menjadi umum dengan penglibatan pihak ketiga ini atau apa yang dikenali sebagai triadic. Dalam konteks sosio-perundangan pihak ketiga ini terdiri daripada sesiapa sahaja baik secara formal atau tidak formal. Tumpuan kajian sosio perundangan ialah kepada penyelesaian masalah. Di peringkat triadic ini konflik antara pihak-pihak sudah menjadi pertikaian atau dispute yang perlu kepada penyelesaian. Cara dan bagaimana pertikaian ini diselesaikan bergantung kepada faktor-faktor sosial dan akses serta kewujudan institusi yang mengurus penyelesaian konflik. Sebagai contoh dalam masyarakat desa atau tradisional penyelesaian konflik lebih kepada saluran informal manakala dalam masyarakat kota atau moden penyelesaian konflik adalah secara mahkamah atau litigasi.
ANG KA LEONG v. YONG SIEW CHEN & ANOR [2023] 9 CLJ 756
COURT OF APPEAL, KUCHING
SUPANG LIAN JCA; MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI JCA; AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: Q-07-71-06-2023]
29 AUGUST 2023
By the terms of s. 50 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, there are two instances when a High Court's decision is not appealable to the Court of Appeal. Firstly, when the decision is made in the course of a trial. Secondly, when the decision does not dispose of the rights of parties with finality ('second category'). The application for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court ordering a case to be remitted to the Magistrates' Court for a retrial, which has the capability of reviving the likelihood of attaching a liability upon the applicant, falls under the second category, making the application for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Leave to appeal - Application for leave to appeal against decision of High Court ordering case to be remitted to Magistrates' Court for retrial - Whether decision appealable - Whether decision disposed of rights of parties with finality - Whether decision usurped prosecutorial discretion of Public Prosecutor - Whether High Court's powers of revision conferred by statutes - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 35 & 50
CLJ Bulletin #44/2023
عن علي قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : إذا تقاضى إليك رجلان فلا تقض للأول حتى تسمع ما يقول الآخر فإنك سوف ترى كيف تقضي ، قال علي : فما زلت بعدها قاضيا
