HOME

“The power conferred by O. 14A is a salutary summary jurisdiction aimed at the efficient disposal of litigation where a determinative question of law can be identified and resolved on undisputed facts. As the Federal Court explained in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Bhd & Other Appeals [2014] 7 CLJ 597, the jurisdiction is exercisable where: (i) the question is a pure question of law; (ii) the question can be resolved on facts that are undisputed or agreed; (iii) the determination would finally dispose of the whole cause or matter or a claim or issue therein; and (iv) the determination is suitable without a full trial.”

“As to what constitutes a “pure question of law”, the courts have consistently held that the question need not be simple or uncomplicated. A question of statutory construction – however contested the parties' submissions – remains a question of law if its resolution depends solely upon the meaning, scope and effect of the statutory provision and does not turn upon the resolution of disputed primary facts.”

“I am of the considered view that the threshold requirement of undisputed facts does not demand that every conceivable factual question in the litigation be free from controversy. It requires only that the relevant facts necessary for the resolution of the stated legal question be undisputed. Where the primary facts material to the legal question are agreed or unanswerable, the O. 14A jurisdiction is available notwithstanding the existence of other factual disputes that would, if the legal question is answered in the applicant's favour, become academic.” - Per Rajes Raghavji JC in Pesako Technology Sdn Bhd v. Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2026] 6 CLJ 308

“A court would not be equipped to decide on the legality of the YDPA’s satisfaction of national threats as it would be impossible to adduce all available facts before the courts and as such it would be inappropriate for a court exercising powers of judicial review to make value judgments of a non-judicial nature.”

“The courts are simply ill equipped to deal with matters involving national security. By its very nature, sensitive information cannot be disclosed to the court. Matters relating to national security are best left to the agencies who are privy to sensitive information. The executive is best placed to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in such matters.”

“There is an obvious overlap here in the separation of powers. In such situations, the courts themselves must tread carefully lest they themselves fall foul of the rule against transgressing the separation of powers.”

“It is for the reasons stated above, that we hold that the emergency powers under art. 150 to be non-justiciable.” - Per Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA in Syed Iskandar Jaafar v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2026] 6 CLJ 178