Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inherent powers of the court

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-19-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-19-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal may strike out an appeal under its inherent power to prevent abuse of process where a notice of appeal cannot be served and there is no realistic prospect of hearing; the Court may subsequently reinstate such an appeal under its inherent power to prevent injustice (r 105 RCA read with r 1A RCA) when the appellant subsequently traces the respondent; upon reinstatement the Court has statutory discretion under s 56A CJA to issue a warrant and to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal; warrants issued by the Court are presumed regular under s 114(e) Evidence Act and challen…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-14-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-14-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

When notice of appeal cannot be served and there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal being heard the Court may strike out the appeal as an abuse of process under r105; if the respondent is later traced the Court may reinstate the appeal under r105 read with r1A to prevent injustice; once reinstated the Court has discretion under s56A CJA to issue a warrant and to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal; s114(e) EA creates a rebuttable presumption that the warrant was lawfully issued; on the facts bail was granted to the 2nd respondent on deposit RM7,000 with one surety and no surrender…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-15-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that it may strike out appeals under its inherent power to prevent abuse of process where notice cannot be served and there is no prospect of hearing; it may later reinstate those appeals under its inherent power to prevent injustice read with r1A when the respondent is subsequently traced; once reinstated the Court had discretion under s56A CJA to issue a warrant and to grant bail to a respondent arrested under that warrant; s114(e) EA gives a rebuttable presumption of regularity to the issuance of the warrant; applying these principles the Court reinstated the eight appeals,…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-12-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that it may strike out a PP appeal when notice cannot be served and no reasonable prospect of hearing exists to prevent abuse of process (r105 RCA); the Court may reinstate a struck-out appeal when the respondent is later traced to prevent injustice (r105 read with r1A RCA); once reinstated the appeal is 'an appeal presented against an acquittal' and the Court has discretion under s56A CJA to issue a warrant and to remand or admit to bail; s114(e) EA creates a rebuttable presumption of regularity of the warrant; exercising its discretion under s56A the Court granted bail of RM7…
26 Sept 2025

1. ) HARIS FADZILAH BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) NORYATI BINTI ABU BAKAR

Citation

J-06A(LB)-18-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

LB
Case number

J-06A(LB)-18-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that it had inherent power under r 105 RCA to strike out appeals to prevent abuse where notice could not be served and no withdrawal was sought, and it also had power under r 105 read with r 1A RCA to reinstate such appeals to prevent injustice once the respondent was traced; upon reinstatement the Court lawfully issued a warrant under s 56A CJA (presumed regular under s 114(e) EA) and had discretion to grant bail under s 56A, exercising that discretion to grant bail on specified terms (deposit RM7,000 and one surety, no passport surrender).
16 Jun 2025

1. ) JANACOM KONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) JANACON TRADING SDN BHD 3. ) JANATHANAN A/L GOVINTHA NAIR LE TOUR DU MONDE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-20-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-20-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to provide a credible, prompt and non-fabricated explanation for filing the Record of Appeal out of time; clerical error excuse was not satisfactorily substantiated, Defendants have a history of habitual delay, and the DCC could not be relied upon because prior orders precluded filing it; therefore there was no basis to exercise discretion to extend time and the application was dismissed and the appeal was dismissed for want of a valid RoA.
27 Nov 2024

1. ) LEE MAN CHEONG 2. ) LEE CHOI CHAN 1. ) Lee Woon Yong (Sebagai Dahulunya Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Lee Moah & Lee Ah Tuck (No. K/p: 360810-06-5025), Melalui Geran Probet Bertarikh 19.3.2021 Dalam Guaman Di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lum

Citation

WA-22NCvC-671-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-671-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for repeated non‑appearances, relied on a counsel‑affirmed affidavit that did not establish the reasons nor the merits of the defence, and failed to produce evidence (eg medical records) to support the substantive claim of lack of testamentary capacity; therefore the JID would not be set aside and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Aug 2024

Ng Chui Kin Ng Chin Kum (Sebagai Wasi Harta Pusaka Ng Chin Hon @ Ng Chin Woon

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1630-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1630-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff admitted the signatures, the minor variations were reasonably explained by differences in time and the plaintiff's age/physical deterioration, the application was filed late and would prejudice process, and the court has power under s73 EA to compare writings without requiring a forensic examination; therefore no valid reason existed to order forensic testing.
1 Feb 2024

PAUL RAJ A/L SAMY RAJ MAJLIS BANDARAYA SEBERANG PERAI

Citation

PA-21E-1-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-21E-1-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to tax was dismissed because the 16.2.2023 order fixing costs was a final order made after hearing; the proper recourse was leave to appeal under established authority (Ng King Chong). Order 1A and Order 92 r.4 do not authorize taxation of a final fixed costs order absent injustice or abuse, and s.68(1)(c) CJA reserves costs to the court's discretion; accordingly the taxation application was improper and constituted an abuse of process.
22 Aug 2023

PREMALATHA A/P RAMA GOVINDA PREMAVATHY A/P BALAKRISHNAN

Citation

AB-24NCvC-21-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-24NCvC-21-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant has failed to comply with the final and enforceable judgment declaring the Plaintiff's beneficial half-share, has caused inordinate delay and has not paid ordered costs; the Court therefore properly invoked its inherent powers and the omnibus prayer to grant consequential mandatory orders (with adjusted timelines) to enforce the judgment and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.