Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revisionary powers

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2025

Cheong Yong Yin (Beramal Sebagai Ernest Cheong Plt Chartered Surveyors, Ve(3) 0017) BANDAR UTAMA CITY ASSETS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCvC-104-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-104-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 34 of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 bars revision where an appeal lay and was not taken; the plaintiff provided no reason for failing to appeal, therefore the High Court refused to exercise its revisionary powers and dismissed the originating summons with costs.
16 Apr 2024

SAMSUDIN BIN MD SUPPIAN

Citation

B-09-101-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-09-101-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Although s.305 CPC restricts appeals against convictions after an unequivocal guilty plea, appellate courts retain power to review and set aside convictions that are illegal or where there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Court found the trial court complied with s.173(b) CPC, the plea was voluntary and unqualified, documentary evidence was read and admitted, and there was no procedural irregularity. Consequently the conviction was safe and the sentence (including the High Court's increase on cross-appeal) was not manifestly excessive; the appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence…
15 Feb 2024

SHEILA SHARON A/P STEVEN KUMAR

Citation

B-07-89-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

B-07-89-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Leave to appeal was granted because the High Court's exercise of revision without notifying or hearing the accused breached s.325(2) CPC and the audi alteram partem principle, constituting a miscarriage of justice and raising questions of law; therefore the applicant satisfied the threshold for leave under s.50(2) CJA.
21 Jul 2023

IBRAHIM BIN MAHD NAZRI

Citation

AA-42JSKS-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42JSKS-2-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court struck out appeals on conviction under s.305 CPC but, exercising revisionary powers, found no defect in recording of guilty pleas and affirmed convictions; it set aside the whipping ordered and reduced imprisonment to 3 years for the second charge under s.15(a)(ii) SOACA in AA-62JSK-49-06/2022, and affirmed all other sentences and concurrent order as made by the Sessions Court.
7 Mar 2022

1. ) Kwan Ngen Wah 2. ) Ang Yung Yung Julita Binti Tinggal

Citation

S-02(NCvC)(A)-1899-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

S-02(NCvC)(A)-1899-09/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the District Native Court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate pre-1993 Native Certificates because section 3(3) of the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance 1952 vests review/appeal in the District Officer or Board of Officers and section 16 of the Native Courts Enactment 1992 is not retrospective; consequently the District Native Court's decision and the lay-majority affirmance were nullities, and the presiding High Court Judge's judgment on legal issues not involving native law/custom should prevail; the High Court's order quashing the presiding judge's judgment was s…
17 Jan 2022

MAHAHDIR BIN SIRON PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

JB-43-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-43-2-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found no irregularity or miscarriage: records and CRT, together with prosecution account, established the accused understood the charges, pleaded guilty voluntarily and admitted facts; possession of victim's property linked accused to offences; procedural defects alleged (audio gaps, absence of machete, DNA service) did not vitiate plea-based convictions; therefore the revision application was dismissed and the Sessions Court convictions and sentences were upheld.
25 Oct 2021

[ ] Mohamad Shafie Bin Abdul Rani

Citation

AA-42JSKLB(A)-2-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-42JSKLB(A)-2-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that registration of appeals places the matters within the Court's jurisdiction and a notice of withdrawal lodged by the prosecution does not automatically end the appeal; the Court may exercise its revisionary powers under section 325 CPC even where an appeal is pending and may decide whether to allow withdrawal. Exercising that jurisdiction in the interests of justice, the Court struck out the notices of withdrawal and set the appeals down for hearing and revision (hearing deferred).
14 Oct 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MOHAMMAD FADIL HANAPI BIN MD SAHIDEK

Citation

JB-43-3-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-43-3-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court exercised its revisionary powers to set aside the succeeding Sessions Court's order for a de novo trial because the successor judge failed to provide reasons for reopening the prior prima facie finding; a change of judge does not automatically require a de novo trial and the successor must exercise s.261 discretion judiciously; recorded video/audio proceedings reduce need to recall witnesses. The previous Sessions Court ruling that the prosecution made out a prima facie case is restored and the defence may call witnesses who must be evaluated by the presiding Sessions Court Jud…
30 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Puan Izalina binti Abdullah (Jabatan Peguam Negara) Encik Hanif Khatri (Tetuan Hanif Khatri)

Citation

WA-44-149-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-149-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that offences attracting the increased penalties under Section 39A(2) DDA (including possession of 196.36g cannabis) fall within the unbailable category under Section 41B(1)(b) by purposive construction; consequently Section 388 CPC does not entitle the accused to bail in such DDA cases and the Sessions Court’s refusal was correct.
23 Jul 2021

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MOHAMAD SHAFIE BIN ABDUL RANI

Citation

AA-42JSKLB(A)-1-10/2020, AA-42JSKLB(A)-2-10/2020, AA-42JSKLB(A)-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

A
Case number

AA-42JSKLB(A)-1-10/2020, AA-42JSKLB(A)-2-10/2020, AA-42JSKLB(A)-3-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Once appeals are filed and the record is before the High Court the Court retains jurisdiction; a notice of withdrawal does not end the appeal until the Court allows it; the High Court may exercise its revisionary powers under section 325 CPC even while an appeal is pending and may strike out filed notices of withdrawal and proceed to hear the appeals and exercise revision in the presence of the accused and counsel to safeguard the ends of justice.