Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Competency of appeal

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2024

AT Engineering Solution Sdn Bhd Rank Electronics Sdn Bhd

Citation

PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11BNCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Failure to serve the Notice of Appeal on the respondent within the prescribed time under Order 55 r.3(4) is a fundamental, jurisdictional defect that renders the appeal incompetent and incurable; Order 55 r.13 does not empower the court to cure non-service of the Notice of Appeal; the appeal is therefore struck out.
18 Jan 2023

KITARAN SUKMA SDN. BHD. 1. ) CASA BESTARI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ROYAL PAHANG POLO CLUB SDN. BHD.

Citation

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-12BNCvC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Record of Appeal and Memorandum were not filed within the time prescribed by A.55 KKM 2012 and the court had already refused the appellant's application for extension, there was no properly constituted appeal before the High Court; Order/A.18 r.19 KKM 2012 is inapplicable to cancelling an appeal, and therefore the applications (KM 47 and KM 54) were dismissed.
17 Nov 2021

LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

Citation

JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 6) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 6
Case number

JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 6) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Notice of Appeal was filed after the 14-day statutory period and the application for extension of time was supported by an inadmissible solicitor‑affirmed affidavit that failed to substantiate a grave or genuine reason; no good reason was shown and the Court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the late appeal, which was incompetent and dismissed in limine.
17 Nov 2021

LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

Citation

JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 4) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ENCLOSURE 4
Case number

JB-11ANCVC-3-04/2021 (ENCLOSURE 4) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Notice of appeal was filed after the 14-day period and no admissible affidavit or sufficient reason was before the Court to warrant extension of time; the solicitors' affidavit was inadmissible under Rule 28 and O.41 r.5, therefore no jurisdiction existed to hear the appeal and the appeal is incompetent and must be dismissed in limine.
27 Aug 2020

Yahaya bin Wahi Tan Sri Dr Khair bin Mohamad Yusof (Dinamakan Diatas Kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran) dan 3 lagi

Citation

AB - 25 - 5 - 11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 25 - 5 - 11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal to the Court of Appeal is premature and statutorily barred because the High Court's grant of certiorari did not finally dispose of the parties' rights while assessment of damages (emoluments/back pay) remained pending; therefore section 67(1) Act 91 does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal until a final order including damages is made and the High Court is not functus officio until that final determination.

Malaysia Case Law

AT Engineering Solution Sdn Bhd Rank Electronics Sdn Bhd

KITARAN SUKMA SDN. BHD. 1. ) CASA BESTARI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ROYAL PAHANG POLO CLUB SDN. BHD.

LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

LIM PEI YING LIM HUI TING

Yahaya bin Wahi Tan Sri Dr Khair bin Mohamad Yusof (Dinamakan Diatas Kapasiti sebagai Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran) dan 3 lagi