Malaysia Case Law

16 Jan 2026

NUR NATASHA MOHAMED ZULKARNAIN 1. ) MOHD AIMAN BIN YUSOF PRIESTER 2. ) RAHMAH BINTI AHMED

Citation

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court

Sessions Court

Case number

BC-A53F-2-08/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Paragraph 28(a) of the statement of claim (claim relating to betrothal/breach of promise to marry) is struck out because matters of betrothal fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts under Article 121(1A), the State List and Selangor enactments; the defamation claim disclosed the necessary elements and is prima facie triable and therefore remains; costs of RM2,000 awarded to defendants.

• Strike out
• Order 18 rule 19 roc 2012
• Jurisdiction
• Breach of promise to marry
• Betrothal
• Article 121(1a)

19 Jun 2025

1. ) SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) 2. ) XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR 3. ) Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

01(f)-23-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Court

f

Case number

01(f)-23-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeal is dismissed because the fatwa concerns Hukum Syarak and the control of religious doctrines among persons professing Islam, placing it within Item 1 List II and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts under the subject-matter approach; there was no proof s.51 referral to the National Fatwa Committee was required, and the fatwa properly applies to the first appellant given its Muslim composition and activities.

• Fatwa
• Jurisdiction between civil and syariah courts
• Subject-matter approach
• Article 121(1a)
• Administration of the religion of islam (state of selangor) enactment 2003
• Application of federal statutes (pppa, cma) to fatwa

13 Jan 2023

Kerajaan Negeri Selangor Dahlia Dhaima Binti Abdullah

Citation

B-01(NCvC)(A)-57-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCvC

Case number

B-01(NCvC)(A)-57-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal (dissenting) affirmed the High Court: the case was an ab initio challenge to religious status, therefore civil courts had jurisdiction under the distinction in Rosliza Ibrahim; the 1991 purported conversion was invalid because respondent was underage in breach of s147 Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1952 and no paternal consent was obtained contrary to constitutional requirements; admissions of childhood exposure in Syariah proceedings did not establish that respondent professed Islam; res judicata and locus standi arguments failed because prior Syariah proceedings…

• Religious status
• Conversion of minors
• Jurisdiction of syariah vs civil courts
• Apostasy vs ab initio conversion
• Article 121(1a)
• Freedom of religion

ABDUL KAHAR BIN AHMAD V. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS.

Citation

ABDUL KAHAR BIN AHMAD V. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS.

Court

Malaysian court

Article 121(1A) does not transfer exclusive power to interpret the Federal Constitution to Syariah Courts; the Federal Court, under article 128(1) and the Federal List (item 4(k)), retains exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether State Enactment provisions are within State legislative competence and constitutionally valid, therefore the motion to require the Syariah High Court to decide the Islamic-law question and to stay proceedings was dismissed.

• Jurisdiction of federal court
• Jurisdiction of syariah courts
• Interpretation of the federal constitution
• Article 121(1a)
• Article 128(1)
• Ascertainment of islamic law