Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Amendment of notice of appeal

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2025

JAYSAKTHI A/L MANIMARAN

Citation

JA-44-46-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-44-46-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s.310 KTJ and allowed the application to amend the Notice of Appeal because applicant provided credible justification for the delay (former counsel's oversight), ratified the supporting affidavit, there was no real prejudice to the prosecution, the appeal against conviction was already timely filed and the Sessions Court's grounds of decision were not yet available; prospect of success on sentence was reserved to appeal.
13 Feb 2025

VIKNESWARAN A/L NADAN 1. ) Shathiswaran A/l Nadaraja 2. ) MUNEESWARI A/P RAMAN 3. ) AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

BA-12B-41-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-41-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court has jurisdiction under Order 55 read with Order 55 r4(1)(f) and r9 to amend the Notice of Appeal; the 17‑month delay was explained by procedural history and the application was filed promptly once the adequacy issue arose, no prejudice to the third respondent was shown and the amendment was necessary to adjudicate the appeal on its true merits, therefore the application to amend is allowed and costs awarded to the third respondent.
28 Aug 2023

1. ) KATIRVELL A/L NAGEICHELVAM 2. ) MARAN A/L VENGADAPATHY 1. ) Danishkumar A/l Chandra Sekera 2. ) Thanavesan A/l Ramayah 3. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-170-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-170-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissed because the mistake was not reasonably explained, there was inordinate delay, the proposed amendment would add another party and cause prejudice by undermining finality and requiring the trial court to reissue grounds; the applicant relied on an incorrect RoC provision and the discretion to amend was not appropriate in the circumstances.
18 Jan 2022

MUHAMAD ROSRI ZALMI BIN MUHAMMAD (NO. K/P: 891029-06-5839)

Citation

CB-44-6-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-44-6-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend the notice of appeal to include conviction and for extension of time was dismissed. The court held that although imprisonment and COVID-19 restrictions are relevant, they do not automatically permit amendment that changes the fundamental basis of an appeal originally limited to sentence; allowing such amendment would prejudice the prosecution and undermine procedural certainty. The court emphasized the need for appellants to decide and state whether appeal is against conviction or sentence and that amendment is discretionary and not warranted on the facts presented.
19 Feb 2019

PMB TIJARI BERHAD 1. METRO MEGAMAS SDN BHD 2. SAJAD HUSSAIN

Citation

W-02(NCVC)(W)-2145-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

W-02(NCVC)(W)-2145-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the amendment because the Original Notice of Appeal could reasonably be read as appealing the part of the High Court judgment awarding RM4,000,000 (encompassing liability and quantum), the respondents were not prejudiced (they had addressed both issues in written submissions), and the Court properly exercised its Rule 21(1) discretion to permit clarification rather than defeat the appeal on a technicality.

Malaysia Case Law

JAYSAKTHI A/L MANIMARAN

VIKNESWARAN A/L NADAN 1. ) Shathiswaran A/l Nadaraja 2. ) MUNEESWARI A/P RAMAN 3. ) AXA AFFIN GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

1. ) KATIRVELL A/L NAGEICHELVAM 2. ) MARAN A/L VENGADAPATHY 1. ) Danishkumar A/l Chandra Sekera 2. ) Thanavesan A/l Ramayah 3. ) PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BHD

MUHAMAD ROSRI ZALMI BIN MUHAMMAD (NO. K/P: 891029-06-5839)

PMB TIJARI BERHAD 1. METRO MEGAMAS SDN BHD 2. SAJAD HUSSAIN