Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ouster clause

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2025

1. ) KOH THONG BEE 2. ) MYA THINZAR MAW 3. ) KOH MIAW XIN 1. ) Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-24NCvC-140-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCvC-140-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 3rd Applicant was illegitimate at birth so Section 17 applies and the child's citizenship follows the mother, therefore Article 14(1)(b) cannot be invoked through the father's citizenship; additionally naturalization under Article 19 is a federal government function excluded from judicial review by Part III, so the application fails and is dismissed.
1 Oct 2021

Dhinesh a/l Tanaphll 1. ) Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah 2. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PEMULIHAN KHAS, BENTONG, PAHANG 3. ) Ketua Polis Negara

Citation

05(HC)-12-01/2021(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-12-01/2021(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 15B POCA insofar as it purports to oust all judicial review of Board decisions is unconstitutional and void for being inconsistent with Article 4(1) FC; the High Court and appellate courts retain power to review legality of preventive detention beyond narrow internal procedural compliance; on the facts there was non-compliance with s4(2) POCA remand requirements and a breach of natural justice by the Board in refusing a requested witness, warranting issuance of habeas corpus and release; delays did not fatally prejudice the detainee on these facts.
24 Aug 2021

KHAIRUDDIN BIN ABU HASSAN [NO. K/P: 620204-07-5141] 1. ) TAN SRI DATO’ HJ. MAHIADDIN BIN MD. YASSIN 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-24-3-01-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24-3-01-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was struck out because the plaintiff's case was premised on an unproven factual assumption (that the Prime Minister had lost majority support) which the proceeding did not seek to determine, and because Article 150(8) FC ousts court jurisdiction to question the validity or continued operation of an Emergency proclamation; consequently the claim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and the strike out application was allowed.
28 Jul 2021

1. TAN BUN TEET 2. ISMAIL BIN ABU BAKAR 3. PONUSAMY A/L GOVINDASAMY TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMED, PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA & 30 YANG LAIN

Citation

WA-25-508-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-508-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the 15.8.2019 reversal on pre-conditions was the Minister's decision made pursuant to section 32(5) AELA (not a Cabinet exercise of the appeal power); subsection 32(5) contains an ouster clause rendering the Minister's order final and not amenable to judicial review; accordingly the judicial review application was dismissed.
16 Jul 2021

NIVESH NAIR A/L MOHAN 1. DATO' ABDUL RAZAK BIN MUSA, PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 3. PENGUASA, PUSAT PEMULIHAN KHAS, SIMPANG RENGGAM, KLUANG, JOHOR

Citation

05(RJ)-2-03/2021(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

RJ
Case number

05(RJ)-2-03/2021(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The review application was allowed and the prior Federal Court order dated 19.2.2021 was set aside because the majority judgment decided, on a crucial point (that the Basic Structure Doctrine is not part of our law), an issue that was not put to the parties and which the parties had proceeded on a different common premise, thereby breaching natural justice (audi alteram partem) and causing a substantial miscarriage of justice; rehearing ordered.
3 May 2021

MANZUR MYDIN B. BACHA MYDIN (No. K/P: 801118-10-5589) 1. MENTERI KEWANGAN 2. PENGARAH KASTAM, LAPANGAN TERBANG ANTARABANGSA KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

BA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-4-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the Attorney General's objections — that the travel ban was unreviewable and that domestic remedies were not exhausted — went to the merits and not to whether the leave application was frivolous; exhaustion issues and ouster arguments are for the substantive hearing, and absence of affidavit in reply left the leave application non-frivolous.
30 Apr 2021

En. Selvam Shanmugam & En. Surenthiran Raj [Messrs Selvam Shanmugam & Partners] Pn Norazlin Binti Mohamad Yusoff & En. Muhamad Safuan Bin Azhar Deputy Public Prosecutors [Attorney’s General Chambers]

Citation

WA-44-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-213-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because (1) secretary's affidavit was competent and absence of chairman's affidavit did not prejudice Applicant; (2) failure to produce minutes did not attract adverse inference on the facts and did not amount to procedural non-compliance under POCA; (3) there was no credible evidence Applicant was a whistleblower or entitled to immunity; and (4) section 15B of POCA bars merits review of the Board's decision so only procedural defects could invalidate detention and none were established.
22 Apr 2021

DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM 1. ) TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MUHYIDDIN BIN HAJI MD YASSIN (PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA) 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-31-01-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-31-01-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Article 150(6) and 150(8) of the Federal Constitution are constitutional and operate as an ouster clause preventing judicial review of the proclamation and ordinances made under Article 150; the Cabinet/Prime Minister's advice that culminated in the proclamation and promulgation of the Ordinance is not a separable legal decision amenable to judicial review; accordingly the application for leave is not justiciable and is dismissed.
19 Feb 2021

ROVIN JOTY A/L KODEESWARAN LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH DAN 4 LAGI

Citation

05(HC)-304-12/2019(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-304-12/2019(B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 15B of the Prevention of Crime Act 2015 is unconstitutional and void to the extent that it purports to oust the courts' jurisdiction to review the constitutionality or legality of Board decisions; Art 4(1) FC preserves the judiciary's power to examine legislation and executive acts for consistency with the Constitution, and courts may judicially review Board decisions on legality (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety) in a proportionate manner without substituting merits.
19 Feb 2021

1. ) ROVIN JOTY A/L KODEESWARAN 2. ) DARWEESH BIN RAJA SULAIM 3. ) RAGU A/L VITEE 4. ) VELU A/L RAJAKUMAR 5. ) DEVANDREN A/L JAMES 6. ) NIVESH NAIR A/L MOHAN 1. ) 1. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH 2. PEGAWAI INKUIRI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 3.

Citation

05(HC)-304-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-308-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-303-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-305-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-307-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-7-01/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

HC
Case number

05(HC)-304-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-308-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-303-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-305-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-307-12/2019(B); 05(HC)-7-01/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Section 15B POCA is valid and constitutional: POCA was enacted under Article 149 FC and section 15B properly confines judicial review to questions of compliance with procedural requirements; Parliament may limit review by clear words in a preventive security statute and such limitation does not offend Articles 4(1) or 121(1) or amount to an unlawful usurpation of judicial power; appellants failed to prove non-compliance of procedure (including appointment challenge), therefore appeals dismissed.