Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Article 121(1a) federal constitution

Legal area

Court

3 May 2024

Dahlia Dhaima Binti Abdullah MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS)

Citation

01(f)-18-06/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-18-06/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held the operative date of conversion is the date of the actual conversion (17.5.1991), the law applicable then was the Selangor Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1952 which prohibited conversion of persons below puberty (s147), the conversion was therefore invalid for being unilateral and of a minor without requisite consent, and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to determine ab initio claims regarding constitutional religious identity; Syariah courts in the Federal Territory lacked jurisdiction over Selangor law and their orders in this matter are void for want of ju…
3 May 2024

Dahlia Dhaima Binti Abdullah Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

Citation

01(f)-19-06/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-19-06/2023(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The appeals are dismissed because the Syariah Courts had jurisdiction to decide the appellant's claim for a declaration she was no longer a Muslim (an apostacy/renunciation matter), the Syariah High Court and Syariah Court of Appeal had adjudicated and found she was a Muslim based on the factual matrix (conversion, upbringing and conduct), and Civil Courts cannot reverse decisions of Syariah Courts made within their jurisdiction under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution; therefore the High Court erred in granting the declaration and the Court of Appeal majority decision is affirmed.
7 Sept 2023

Hisham Bin Halim 1. ) Maya Binti Ahmad Fuaad 2. ) Ketua Hakim Syarie Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Selangor 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia 4. ) Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Negeri Selangor 5. ) Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah

Citation

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-37-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for stay was dismissed because Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution bars the civil High Court from intervening in matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts; the court had already dismissed the judicial review for lack of jurisdiction and it would be inconsistent and prejudicial to permit a stay that interferes with Syariah proceedings.
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 allowed the appeals because the Syariah High Court and Syariah Court of Appeal had already judicially determined that the respondent is a Muslim; therefore the Civil High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 121(1A) to entertain the originating summons as a matter of renunciation. On the merits the respondent failed to prove an ab initio case; the High Court's declaration was set aside.
13 Jan 2023

MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (MAIS) Dahlia Dhaima Binti Abdullah

Citation

B-01(NCvC)(A)-40-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-01(NCvC)(A)-40-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court declaration because the respondent's religious status had already been judicially determined by the Syariah High Court and affirmed by the Syariah Court of Appeal, making the Civil High Court lack jurisdiction under Article 121(1A); on the facts the matter was a renunciation case not an ab initio case and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.
22 Aug 2022

MARIA CHIN BINTI ABDULLAH 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (MAWIP) 3. ) JABATAN KEHAKIMAN SYARIAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-73-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave granted because applicant demonstrated serious and arguable questions of law: whether s229 SCPA may be invoked by a private individual and whether Syariah Courts may interpret and apply federal statutes in ways that affect fundamental liberties; civil superior courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to determine such questions and the application was not premature as the Leave Order and Notice to Show Cause immediately and adversely affected the applicant.
18 Aug 2021

WAN JOHAIRIZA BIN WAN AB RAHMAN 1. MAHKAMAH RAYUAN SYARIAH SELANGOR 2. KETUA HAKIM SYARIE SELANGOR 3. MASAYU BINTI MOHAMAD HUSAIN

Citation

WA-25-136-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-136-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave was dismissed because the subject matter challenged was a decision of the Selangor Syariah Appeal Court made within its jurisdiction and, by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and binding authorities, is not amenable to judicial review by the civil High Court; the leave application was therefore frivolous and lacked an arguable case.
5 Feb 2021

ROSLIZA BINTI IBRAHIM 1. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR 2. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR

Citation

01(f)-2-01/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-2-01/2020(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Where the question is whether a person is or is not a Muslim under the law (original legal/religious status) the Civil High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine that question; where the question is whether a person is no longer a Muslim (apostasy/renunciation) the Syariah Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 121(1A). The appeal was allowed in part: the Federal Court granted the declaration of illegitimacy but deferred determination of the appellant's religious status and prayers concerning applicability of Syariah law pending the opinion of the Selangor Fatwa Committee under…
AZIZAH BINTI SHAIK ISMAIL & ANOR V FATIMAH BINTI SHAIK ISMAIL & ANOR

Citation

AZIZAH BINTI SHAIK ISMAIL & ANOR V FATIMAH BINTI SHAIK ISMAIL & ANOR
Court

Malaysian court

Because the subject matter was custody of a Muslim child, it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court under art.121(1A); therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus application even though the Syariah Court could not grant that remedy, and the appellants should have appealed the Syariah Court decision.