Tidak Boleh memberi komen mencemar martabat Mahkamah Syariah

 SM FAISAL SM NASIMUDDIN lwn. MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH [2022] 5 CLJ 634

MAHKAMAH TINGGI SYARIAH, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMED FOUZI MOKHTAR HS
[PERMOHONAN NO: 14400-099-0317-2019]
25 APRIL 2022

Apa jua komen yang dibuat mengenai Mahkamah Syariah dan sistem keadilannya hendaklah bersifat adil dan berdasarkan kebenaran fakta, dan sama sekali tidak boleh mencemar nama baik, reputasi, maruah atau martabat Mahkamah Syariah. Menulis artikel dan menuduh bahawa keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Syariah dalam satu perbicaraan adalah 'a disgrace to the judicial system' dan sebagainya adalah bersifat menghina; ia boleh menjerumuskan si pelakunya kepada satu tindakan pengkomitan.

MAHKAMAH
Menghina mahkamah - Perintah pengkomitan - Ahli Parlimen - Mendakwa Mahkamah Syariah mendiskriminasi Wanita Muslim, membiar mereka tidak terbela dan tidak bertindak terhadap bapa-bapa yang tidak membayar nafkah anak - Sama ada bersifat menghina - Sama ada salah nyataan dan tidak berdasarkan fakta sebenar - Sama ada menjejaskan reputasi dan martabat Mahkamah Syariah - Sama ada mewajarkan perintah pengkomitan - Akta Tatacara Mal Mahkamah Syariah (Wilayah-wilayah Persekutuan) 1998, s. 229(3)

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGTBXkhHqnVpLbPjMRJvMzdnG

Parti Politik Tidak Boleh Menyaman Malu

 LIM LIP ENG v. ONG KA CHUAN [2022] 5 CLJ 847

FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; MARY LIM FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-25-03-2020(W)]
27 APRIL 2022

A political party such as the MCA in this appeal has no cause of action in defamation. Political parties, as registered societies, have no existence of their own separate from their members and are dependent on their members to sue or be sued; consequently, they do not have the requisite reputation to complain of or to be protected within the spheres of the law of defamation. It is also not right nor is it in the public interest to put the public in fear of a defamation suit by a political party; a political party must not be thin-skinned and must always be open to public criticism.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpGdjNJnStTZNzRvfhJQRlsnNr

Mahkamah Tinggi juga boleh membuat tafsiran kepada Perlembagaan?

 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

Parlimen tidak boleh membuat perlembagaan baru?

MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED v. KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2022] 8 CLJ 697

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA; AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NOS: W-01(A)-273-06-2020 & W-01(NCvC)(A)-531-09-2021]
09 AUGUST 2022

Parliament must take the necessary measure to ensure that any amendment to the Federal Constitution ('FC') must not result in a new Constitution, especially with regard to fundamental provision; likewise, the court is bound by the enacted laws and must strive to give effect to the intention of Parliament in enacting the laws. Hence, to declare the word 'father' in s. 1(b) Part II of Second Schedule of the FC to include 'mother' would mean to rewrite the FC and the courts must forbid itself from such an interpretation of the law.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqQcvfprMvctlxHDGLDZjVwFTk

Kuasa Mahkamah mengarah ujian DNA untuk penentuan nasab?

 BSM lwn. BAA & SATU LAGI [2023] 1 CLJ 581

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, TEMERLOH
ROSLAN MAT NOR PK
[SAMAN PEMULA NO: CB-24F-12-08-2022]
07 DECEMBER 2022

(i) Tiada undang-undang khusus di Malaysia tentang bidang kuasa mahkamah untuk mengarahkan seseorang menjalankan ujian DNA demi penentuan nasab. Walaupun apa-apa prinsip undang-undang yang terpakai di United Kingdom boleh diguna pakai di Malaysia, tertakluk pada pematuhan ketat s. 3(1) Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956, prinsip undang-undang keluarga dalam bidang kuasa lain berkaitan nasab tidak sesuai diguna pakai dalam sistem perundangan di Malaysia untuk memutuskan kes ini.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGrcFbggpwpnLkGGFrXlPwDDjNz

JKL v. ABC & ANOR [2022] 7 CLJ 376
HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM
SM KOMATHY SUPPIAH J
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: BA-24F-363-11-2021]
24 MAY 2022

Notwithstanding the absence of any legislative provision in Malaysia on the power of the High Court to order DNA tests to determine paternity, a High Court Judge has inherent power to order a DNA test in disputed paternity cases. DNA testing ought to be ordered especially if the party claiming to be the father of the child has strong prima facie evidence that he is the biological father of the said child. It would also be in the best interest of a child to know his/her birth father/mother.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGqPzBWsWMQxwtHmTBmdQPWKqjv

CAS v. MPPL & ANOR [2022] 6 CLJ 713
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J

[WRIT NO: WA-22F-1-05-2019 (ORIGINALLY ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: WA-24F-107-07-2015)]
21 JUNE 2022
 [2022] CLJ JT (7)

Case laws are replete with decisions that the courts are not seized with the power, in civil proceedings, to compel adults to produce deoxyribonucleic acid ('DNA') samples to prove the paternity of a child. However, it has never been discussed nor decided whether the courts could order for a child to undergo a DNA test to determine the child's paternity. In this distinctive judgment, a prima facie case was established as there was an avalanche of evidence that there existed sexual relations during the conception period of the child, between parties engaging in an extra-marital affair. Also present were overwhelming documentary evidence of an intimate relationship akin to that of a family unit. As it was in the best interest of the child to know her biological father, the child was accordingly ordered to undergo a DNA test to conclusively resolve the ambiguity as to her paternity.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/FMfcgzGpHHKDKxnhJCqXPHKtHhdTDRQX

Tujuan Prinsip Duluan Di Mahkamah Sivil

 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

Pemegang Amanah Bukan Pemilik Berdaftar Tanah

 SILVAM SELLAPAN & ANOR v. TAMIL SELVAM VELUSAMY & ORS [2023] 3 CLJ 371

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA; NORDIN HASSAN JCA; MARIANA YAHYA JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: B-01(NCVC)(W)-374-08-2020]
25 JANUARY 2023

Trustees are not registered owners of a land and have no right to transfer a land to any other entity. Any transfer obtained by insufficient instrument and in clear violation of a declaration of trust ought to be set aside. In such case, there should be a reversion to the status quo ante; the name of the rightful owner should be restored to the issue document of title.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGslkkkbCbgVRfzCQlRmcGGkfdM