Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Speedy trial

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2025

SIM KWANG KAI, ADRIAN JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) CHEONG MUN HONG 2. ) SIGNATURE HEALTHLAND SDN BHD 3. ) Yew Yee Tee

Citation

WA-22NCC-544-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-544-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No special circumstances were demonstrated to justify a stay. The age of the suit and court guidelines requiring disposal and a speedy trial, together with the availability of remedies (leave from the bankruptcy court or filing a proof of debt), mean the bankruptcy of the 2nd defendant does not justify vacating fixed trial dates; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
23 May 2024

Tan Hoo Eng Public Prosecutor

Citation

A-05-561-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-05-561-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Sessions Courts and Magistrates have jurisdiction and power to decide constitutional issues; the High Court's power to transfer is governed and limited by s 417 CPC; appellant failed to establish any of the grounds in s 417(1)(a),(b) or (e) to justify transfer; DPP concession and findings in unrelated civil proceedings did not establish entitlement to transfer; appeal dismissed.
4 Oct 2021

Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor (No. K/P:511210-05-5558)

Citation

W-07-79-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-07-79-09/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the application for stay because the Applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional or unusual circumstances required to justify a stay; the possibility that proceedings may be rendered a nullity or that the Applicant will incur trial expense does not constitute special circumstances; public interest and statutory policy favor expeditious completion of the trial (s172B(4) CPC).
24 Feb 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Goh Hwa Kiang

Citation

AB-44-14-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-44-14-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court improperly exercised its discretion by ordering DNAA despite prolonged prosecutorial dilatoriness and the accused being remanded since 2018; in revision the High Court set aside the DNAA and substituted a discharge amounting to an acquittal because public interest and the accused's right to a fair and speedy trial required acquittal under s 325(1) CPC.
12 Oct 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Mohd Yazid Bin Turot

Citation

JG-82-02-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-82-02-10/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Because section 254A CPC permits reinstatement of trial on recharge and thereby renders a DNAA non-final, and because the Public Prosecutor applied for DNAA exercising exclusive prosecutorial discretion, the DNAA order was not a final order and thus not appealable; the appeal is dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

SIM KWANG KAI, ADRIAN JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) CHEONG MUN HONG 2. ) SIGNATURE HEALTHLAND SDN BHD 3. ) Yew Yee Tee

Tan Hoo Eng Public Prosecutor

Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor (No. K/P:511210-05-5558)

PENDAKWARAYA Goh Hwa Kiang

PENDAKWARAYA Mohd Yazid Bin Turot