CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
PP v. ROSMAH MANSOR [2022] 9 CLJ 83
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHAMED ZAINI MAZLAN J
[CRIMINAL TRIAL NOS: WA-45-9-03-2019 & WA-45-19-07-2019]
01 SEPTEMBER 2022
The offence of corruptly soliciting or receiving gratifications under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ('Act'), namely under s. 16(a)(A) thereof, may and can be committed through an intermediary. It follows that where the accused had conveyed the solicitation through a trusted aide and had, through the latter's assistance, received the money or part of the money solicited, the ingredients of the offence or offences, including the presumption so spoken of under s. 50(1) of the Act, had been satisfied and triggered. It is then up to the accused to 'turn the table' against the prosecution and rebut the presumption or presumptions that arose, failing which the case against him could have been proved beyond reasonable doubt as to make him guilty of the offence or offences charged.
CRIMINAL LAW: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 - Section 16(a)(A) - Corruptly soliciting, receiving gratifications - Ingredients - Proof - Solicitation - Whether could be committed through intermediary - Presumption - Presumption that solicitation was for purpose cited in charge - Section 50(1) of MACC Act - Whether arose - Whether offences proven beyond reasonable doubt
APPEAL UPDATES
-
Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan v. Lee Chang Yong & Ors & Another Appeal [2021] 1 LNS 2079 affirming the High Court case of Lee Chang Yong v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam & Ors [Judicial Review No: WA-25-105-06/2016]
-
Solaris Estates Sdn Bhd v. Mat Shah Safuan [2021] 1 LNS 1244 affirming the High Court case of Mat Shah Bin Safuan v. Solaris Estates Sdn Bhd [Petisyen Penggulungan No.: JA-28NCC-194-10/2018]
LATEST CASES
Legal Network Series
|
[2021] 1 LNS 967
|
JIPANUS MOLUKUN v. OI THIAM BENG
As per O. 18 r. 13 (2) of the Rules of Court 2012, although the traverse may be either denial or statement of non-admission, expressly or by necessary implication, it must still be specific and not a general denial or a general statement of non-admission. Any allegation of fact made by a plaintiff in a statement of claim not sufficiently traversed in the defence will be taken as admitted by the defendant, thus relieving the plaintiff from the need to prove it.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Defence - Cause of action premised on trespass to land - Application to strike out on grounds that statement of defence failed to disclose reasonable defence - Defendant's pleas in certain paragraph of statement of defence were imprecise - Whether court has to read statement of defence as a whole when certain paragraphs of defence were ambiguous and irregular - Whether statement of defence disclosed no reasonable defence - Whether non-compliance with O. 18 r. 13(3) of Rules of Court 2012 warrant striking out
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleadings - Defence - Admission and denials - Requirement for traverse to be specific - Whether allegation of fact in statement of claim not sufficiently traversed in defence would be taken as admitted by defendant - Whether plaintiff would be relieved from needing to prove particular facts in statement of claim which was not sufficiently traversed by defendant in defence - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 rr. 13(2) & (3)
- For the appellant - Ho Kin Kong & Jeremy Ho; M/s Ho Chong Yong
- For the respondent - Amli Nohin; M/s RM Jarin & Co
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2205
|
LAN LIMIAO AND ORS v. INSPECTOR MOHAMMAD HAFIFI ZAILAN & ORS
A detention under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') is preventive in nature and can run parallel to punitive proceedings under any penal law. As such, POCA has no effect of preventing the public prosecutor from carrying out his constitutional job of prosecuting a detenu under any punitive provisions of the law.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Habeas corpus - Detention under s. 4(1)(a) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Detenu was under remand for 21 days - Detenu alleged to be involved in online gambling - Whether detenu was brought before Magistrate within 24 hours - Whether all procedures and requirements under s. 4(1)(a) of POCA have been complied with - Whether there was any procedural impropriety which entitled detenu to writ of habeas corpus - Whether it was premature to determine detenu being involved in organization and promotion of unlawful gaming - Whether POCA has effect of preventing public prosecutor from prosecuting detenu under normal penal laws
- For the appellant - PG Cyril & A'minahtul Mardiah Nor; M/s Vijey Esvaren
- For the deputy public prosecutor - Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 2185
|
LING JYE SING v. SN NAIR & PARTNERS
Application to enter a judgment in an action to record settlement pursuant to O. 34 r. 2(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 can only be made on agreement of parties in the said action. A party cannot move the court to enter judgment under the said provision when negotiations for a settlement have failed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Settlement - Application to record settlement - Application by one party - Negotiation for settlement failed - Whether there was basis to enter a judgment - Whether application ought to be dismissed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 34 r. 2(5)
- For the plaintiff - M/s Rajinder & Goh
- For the defendant - M/s SN Nair & Partners
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 482
|
SO EYUCHOY lwn. PP
Hukuman penjara 6 tahun bagi kesalahan pemerdagangan kanak-kanak migran bagi tujuan eksploitasi seks bawah s. 12 Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007 mencerminkan keseriusan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh tertuduh dan hukuman tersebut adalah amat wajar serta setimpal dengan jenayah yang dilakukan terutamanya apabila kebebasan mangsa telah disekat dan paksaan telah diperlakukan terhadapnya sehingga mangsa mengalami kecederaan mental, emosi dan fizikal.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Tertuduh dijatuhkan hukuman penjara 6 tahun dan denda RM10,000 gagal bayar 2 tahun penjara - Kesalahan pemerdagangan kanak-kanak migran bagi tujuan eksploitasi seks - Mangsa telah diperlakukan dengan paksaan sehingga mengalami kecederaan mental, emosi dan fizikal - Tertuduh menggunakan mangsa untuk melakukan hubungan seks dengan pelanggan tertuduh di mana bayaran perkhidmatan diambil oleh tertuduh - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah terlampau berat atau berlebihan - Sama ada hakim bicara telah menggunakan prinsip-prinsip hukuman yang betul dengan mengutamakan faktor kepentingan awam lebih daripada kepentingan tertuduh
- Bagi pihak timbalan pendakwaan - Mahadhir Mohd Khairudin; Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
- Bagi pihak peguambela - Chris Kooi; T/n Chris & Co
|
|
[2020] 1 LNS 505
|
PP lwn. DANARAJ SASEKUMAR & SATU LAGI
1. Kredibiliti seorang saksi harus dinilai daripada keutuhan keterangan yang diberi oleh saksi tersebut. Kegagalan saksi untuk membuat laporan polis mengenai kejadian yang dilihat bukanlah faktor untuk menolak keterangan saksi tersebut atau memutuskan bahawa saksi tersebut merupakan saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai. Laporan polis bukanlah satu keterangan yang substantif, justeru ketiadaan laporan polis itu sendiri tidak mewajarkan penolakan keterangan saksi.
2. Pembelaan alibi seorang tertuduh tidak boleh mengatasi pengecaman positif yang dibuat oleh saksi-saksi terhadap tertuduh sebagai orang yang berada di tempat kejadian bersertakan perbuatan yang dilakukan terhadap si mati seperti dalam pertuduhan. Kegagalan tertuduh untuk membuat sebarang laporan polis untuk menyatakan fakta alibi dan kelewatan tertuduh untuk menyatakan fakta alibi boleh menimbulkan keraguan mahkamah berkenaan keterangan pembelaan alibi tertuduh.
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Kredibiliti - Kesalahan bunuh - Saksi tidak membuat laporan polis berkenaan kejadian - Saksi melihat perlakuan tertuduh terhadap si mati - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menolak keterangan saksi semata-mata kerana saksi tidak membuat laporan polis mengenai kejadian
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Alibi - Pertuduhan bunuh - Saksi telah mengecam tertuduh sebagai pelaku yang mencederakan si mati - Fakta berkenaan alibi tidak dinyatakan dalam laporan polis dan hanya dibangkitkan beberapa tahun selepas tangkapan tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan alibi tertuduh boleh mengatasi pengecaman positif saksi - Sama ada pembelaan alibi boleh diterima - Sama ada pembelaan alibi merupakan satu penafian dan sengaja diada-adakan
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Bunuh - Niat - Saksi melihat tertuduh menetak tubuh si mati dengan parang secara bertubi-tubi - Tertuduh dicam oleh saksi ketika kawad cam sebagai penyerang yang menetak si mati - Saksi mengenali tertuduh - Sama ada pengecaman saksi wajar diterima - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai niat untuk mencederakan si mati yang pada lazimnya mencukupi untuk menyebabkan kematian - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Gabriel Susayan; T/n Gerard Lazarus & Associates
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Mohd Fairuz Johari; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor
|
CLJ 2022 Volume 8 (Part 6)
An appeal under s. 39 of the Stamp Act 1949 is invoked by the person paying the stamp duty and not by the Collector of Stamp Duty. Although the notice of appeal is lodged at the High Court and categorised as an appeal, s. 39 provides the appealing party the right to require the Collector to state and sign a case, setting forth the question upon which the opinion of the High Court is required and the decision made by the Collector. The High Court is not required to hear the evidence and make findings on factual evidence heard; its sole function in a case stated is to answer the question(s) posed.
Pemungut Duti Setem v. Lee Koy Eng & A Review Application [2022] 8 CLJ 863 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE | LAND LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Case stated - Collector of Stamp Duty ('Collector') imposed ad valorem stamp duty on instruments of transfer - Collector dismissed review - Appeal to High Court - Function of High Court in case stated - Whether High Court required to hear evidence and make findings on factual evidence - Whether only to answer question(s) posed - Stamp Act 1949, ss. 36(1), 38A & 39
LAND LAW: Transfer - Instruments - Instruments of transfer required to be executed in order to affect transfer of properties owned by deceased - Collector of Stamp Duty ('Collector') imposed ad valorem stamp duty on instruments of transfer - Collector dismissed review - Case stated - High Court allowed appeal and decision affirmed by Court of Appeal - Collector granted leave to appeal at Federal Court - Whether Federal Court seized with jurisdiction - Stamp Act 1949, ss. 36(1), 38A & 39
ROHANA YUSUF PCA
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellant - Hazlina Hussain, Ridzuan Othman & Mohamad Asyraf Zakaria; LHDN
- For the respondent - Thayalan Muniandy, Theomus Foo, Abigail Kung & Teaw Zhen Yang; M/s Chambers of Jason Chew
The fact that Parliament had granted an 'absolute discretion' under s. 7 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, to proscribe publications that are deemed undesirable, does not immunise the Minister of Home Affairs' decision from judicial review. The Minister could still be held to have committed an error of law in the exercise of his discretion if the decision in question could be challenged on the grounds of 'illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality'.
Hew Kuan Yau v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2022] 8 CLJ 880 [CA]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Appeal against - Minister of Home Affairs ('Minister') banned comic book - Book said to be prejudicial to or likely to be prejudicial to public order and alarm public opinion - Whether decision of Minister subject to judicial review - Extent Minister's decision could be examined on merits - Whether there was proper exercise of ministerial discretion on facts - Whether right of hearing must be accorded before banning book - Whether s. 7 of Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 constitutional
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
AHMAD NASFY YASIN JCA
- For the appellants - Shamesh Jeevaretnam & Vince Tan Hoo Seh; M/s Jeeva Partnership
- For the respondent - Ahmad Hanir Hambly & Ng Wee Li; AG's Chambers
(i) When a clause in a contract is a condition precedent, based on mandatory language which is unambiguous, it must be complied with unless there is evidence of a waiver on the part of the other party; (ii) The fact that an aggrieved contractor filed a series of appeals against the rejection of its claim for loss and expenses could not detract from the finality of the certificate of final accounts. The certificate did not lose its legal effect as a document that conclusively settled accounts between parties after the completion of a project.
Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia & Anor v. Sunissa Sdn Bhd [2022] 8 CLJ 901 [CA]
CONTRACT
CONTRACT: Construction contract - Clauses - Employer and contractor entered into contract to construct building - Delay in project not caused by contractor's fault or neglect - Contractor claimed for loss and expense - Failure of contractor to give written notice with estimate of loss to Superintending Officer within 30 days of occurrence of event as stated in cl. 44(1) of contract - Whether clause a condition precedent ought to be complied with - Whether contractor could claim for loss and expense after signing certificate of final accounts
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellants - Masriwani Mahmod & Habibah Haron; AG's Chambers
- For the respondent - William Foo, Siaw Yoong Kei & Tan Wee Jiun; M/s Hiap Siong & Co
Challenge, if any, to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator, must be raised during the arbitration proceedings, and not at the court hearing. Failure to state the objection on the composition of the arbitral tribunal before the arbitrator, constitutes a waiver of the right to object.
Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor v. Salconmas Sdn Bhd [2022] 8 CLJ 919 [CA]
ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION: Agreement - Reference of dispute - Legality of arbitrator's appointment - Whether issue res judicata - Whether issue ventilated in previous proceedings - Whether objection on arbitrator's appointment ought to have been raised before arbitrator - Whether failure amounted to waiver of right to object - Whether final award in conflict with public policy - Whether element of 'conflict with public policy' satisfied - Arbitration Act 2005, ss. 7, 18 & 37(1)(b)(ii)
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
SUPANG LIAN JCA
- For the appellants/plaintiffs - Zureen Elina Mohd Dom, Nur Ezdiani Roseb & Nurul Atiqah Azizan; A-G Chambers
- For the respondent/defendant - Zambri Ibrahim; M/s Zamri Ibrahim & Co
The proposed intervener's application for leave to intervene to vary a custody order involving three children who had been converted from Hinduism to Islam by their father ought not to be allowed as (i) the conversion, being unilateral, was not valid; and (ii) the proposed intervener failed to show the nexus between itself and the children and was therefore not 'an interested person'. The welfare of the children ought to be prioritised, and in doing so, the court should be cautious of any such application by any third party that might cause unwanted intrusion to the children who has been reunited with their mother.
Loh Siew Hong v. Nagahswaran Muniandy; Majlis Agama Islam Dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Perlis (MAIPS) (Proposed Intervener) [2022] 8 CLJ 933 [HC]
FAMILY LAW
FAMILY LAW: Children - Custody order - Proposed intervener applied for leave to intervene to vary custody order involving three children of petitioner and respondent - Children converted to Islam by respondent - Whether conversion valid/illegal - Whether proposed intervener had interest in custody of children - Whether welfare of children ought to be prioritised - Rules of Court 2012, O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) - Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, s. 96
- For the petitioner - Srimurugan Alagan, Shamsher Singh & Gunamalar Joorindanjn; M/s Gunamalar Law Chambers
- For the proposed intervener - Haniff Khatri, Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, Aidil Khalid & Danial Farhan Zainul Rijal; M/s Chambers of Zainul Rijal
The applicant, as a secured creditor, elected to participate in a liquidation process and, on its own accord, segregated the secured and unsecured parts of its debts with the company as well as notified the official receiver ('OR') that it would rank as an ordinary creditor for the unsecured amount pursuant to the proof of debts filed. By its conscious conduct, the applicant made an unequivocal admission and intention to submit to and thereby elected to participate in the liquidation process in respect of its unsecured portion of its debts. The proof of debts, thus been validly filed and properly admitted by the OR, hence the applicant is estopped from alleging that the filing of the same was a mistake.
MCC Overseas (M) Sdn Bhd v. TYL Land & Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2022] 8 CLJ 945 [HC]
BANKING | CIVIL PROCEDURE
BANKING: Banks and banking business - Proof of debts - Motion filed for order that proof of debts be expunged - Whether applicant as secured creditor filed proof of debts based on outdated valuation report - Whether true current value of security exceeded initial valuation - Whether applicant took part in liquidation process - Whether applicant would suffer substantial prejudice if motion not allowed - Whether proof of debts validly filed and properly admitted - Whether applicant elected to abide by s. 524(1)(b) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether there was valid justification for r. 95 of Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 to be applicable in motion
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Documents - Proof of debts - Expungement - Motion filed for order that proof of debts be expunged - Whether applicant as secured creditor filed proof of debts based on outdated valuation report - Whether true current value of security exceeded initial valuation - Whether applicant took part in liquidation process - Whether applicant would suffer substantial prejudice if motion not allowed - Whether proof of debts validly filed and properly admitted - Whether applicant elected to abide by s. 524(1)(b) of Companies Act 2016 - Whether there was valid justification for r. 95 of Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 to be applicable in motion
- For the applicant - Aerrene Eng Tiong Mei & Lee Xiao Yao; M/s Jal & Lim
- For the respondent - Ganesan Karuppannan; M/s Ganesan & Irmohizam
- For the petitioner - Denise Cheong Lin Hwei; M/s Raja, Darryl & Loh
The plaintiffs, having obtained final judgments from the High Court of Singapore in legal proceedings which the defendants refused to participate in, are clearly entitled to register and execute the same in Malaysia in accordance with the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA') . The defendants' ex parte order, declaring that they are not liable to any judgment of the Singapore Court, would have the invidious effect of being incongruent with the very raison d'etre of the REJA, and would fall within the category of 'contravention of statute'. If allowed to stand, the ex parte order has the dire consequence of violating the provisions on reciprocal enforcement of judgments between the courts in Malaysia and Singapore - by preventing the plaintiffs from relying on the REJA.
Mohd Syed Syed Jamaludin & Ors v. MMIP Services Sdn Bhd & Ors [2022] 8 CLJ 962 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Ex parte order - Application to set aside ex parte order declaring defendants not made liable to judgment of Singapore court against them in relation to accident which occurred in Muar - Whether action arising from accident within jurisdiction of courts in Malaysia - Plaintiffs obtained final judgments from High Court of Singapore - Whether plaintiffs entitled to register and execute same in Malaysia - Whether requirements under s. 3(3) of Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 met - Whether ex parte order prejudiced plaintiffs - Whether ex parte order had dire consequence of violating provisions on reciprocal enforcement of judgments between courts in Malaysia and Singapore - Whether ex parte order ought to be set aside
- For the plaintiffs - Darren Lai & Chew Zhen Tao; M/s Richard Wee Chambers
- For the defendants - Reuben Netto, Silva Velu & Monisha Pandey; M/s Silva Velu & Co
Dalam suatu perbicaraan jenayah, apabila keputusan Majistret melepas dan membebaskan tertuduh di akhir kes pendakwaan diakas oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dengan perintah supaya Majistret memanggil tertuduh untuk membela diri, dan Mahkamah Tinggi itu membuat beberapa dapatan fakta bagi mengalasi keputusannya itu, maka Majistret, apabila mendengar kes pembelaan, adalah terikat dengan dapatan-dapatan fakta yang telah dibuat oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut. Dan jika Majistret, dalam membuat keputusan di akhir kes pembelaan, telah sekali lagi mengguna pakai dapatan-dapatan fakta yang dicapainya sewaktu mendapati tiada kes prima facie dibuktikan, yang mana dapatan-dapatan tersebut adalah bercanggah dengan dapatan-dapatan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi bila mengakas keputusannya, maka keputusan Majistret di akhir kes pembelaan berkenaan adalah cacat dan tidak boleh dipertahankan. Ianya terbuka untuk diakas atau diketepikan sama sekali oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.
PP lwn. Sam Ke Ting [2022] 8 CLJ 982 [HC]
LALU LINTAS JALAN | PROSEDUR JENAYAH
LALU LINTAS JALAN: Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987 - Seksyen 41(1) - Memandu secara melulu atau merbahaya - Pemandu kereta melanggar sekumpulan penunggang basikal sehingga menyebabkan lapan daripada mereka menemui ajal - Keputusan Majistret melepas dan membebaskan tertuduh - Sama ada khilaf - Kes prima facie - Kes di luar keraguan munasabah - Sama ada dibuktikan secukupnya
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Perbicaraan - Memandu secara melulu atau merbahaya - Kes prima facie di luar keraguan munasabah - Majistret, fungsi dan tanggungjawab - Dapatan tiada kes prima facie Majistret diakas Mahkamah Tinggi dengan arahan tertuduh dipanggil membela diri - Majistret membebas tertuduh kali kedua di akhir kes pembelaan - Sama ada dapatan fakta Majistret bercanggah dengan dapatan fakta Mahkamah Tinggi - Sama ada Majistret khilaf - Sama ada terikat dengan dapatan-dapatan fakta Mahkamah Tinggi - Akta Pengangkutan Jalan 1987, s. 41(1)
- Bagi pihak perayu - Tengku Amir Zaki Tengku Abdul Rahman; PPN & Mohd Syafiq Mohd Ghazali; TPR
- Bagi pihak responden - Faizal Mokhtar; T/n Balarajah & Co
The law does not allow the admission of a foreign legal practitioner with special qualifications or experience per se; it must be a qualification or experience of a nature which the local advocates and solicitors do not possess.
Re Jonathan Laidlaw QC; Applicant [2022] 8 CLJ 998 [HC]
LEGAL PROFESSION
LEGAL PROFESSION: Admission - Application for - Application to admit Queen's Counsel to practise as Advocate and Solicitor of High Court of Malaya - Whether applicant had special qualifications or experience of nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia - Whether applicant eligible and qualified to be admitted - Legal Profession Act 1976, s. 18(1)
- For the applicant - Harvinderjit Singh, Rahmat Hazlan, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee & Wan Muhammad Arfan Wan Othman; M/s Shafee & Co
- For the Honourable AG - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC
- For the prosecution - Sithambaram Vairavan, Donald Joseph Franklin & Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul, DPPs
- For the Malaysian Bar - Bastian Pius Vendargon, Annemarie Pravina Vendargon & Adrian Kumar Vendargon; M/s Bastian Vendargon
- For the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee - Gurdial Nijar Singh, Abraham Au Tian Hui & Lim Sze Han; M/s Yeoh Mazlina & Partners
ARTICLES
LNS Article(s)
RECENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
by Aryn Rozali** [2022] 1 LNS(A) xcvii
[2022] 1 LNS(A) xcvii
MALAYSIA
RECENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN MALAYSIA*
by
Aryn Rozali**
Introduction
Although the law of negligence is not something foreign to the legal fraternity, the tests or principles to conclude a tortious act have been evolving throughout time. In the majority of tort cases, one of the determinations on whether a defendant is liable for a tortious act towards the plaintiff is whether the defendant has a duty of care toward the plaintiff. The landmark case for duty of care was Donoghue v. Stevenson[1] which has been referred to numerous times for laying down the twofold test which includes the 'neighbour principle' as well as the foreseeability test in tort cases. Later on, the House of Lords introduced the threefold test in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman[2] which has three criteria to be fulfilled before a duty can be said to be owed by a defendant.
. . .
DEATH PENALTY UNDER NIGERIAN LAW: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES [Read excerpt]
by Abraham F Afolayan[i]Salmanu M Rilwanu[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) xcviii
[2022] 1 LNS(A) xcviii
NIGERIA
DEATH PENALTY UNDER NIGERIAN LAW: CRITICAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
by
Abraham F Afolayan[i]
Salmanu M Rilwanu[ii]
ABSTRACT
Of all the punishments provided under the criminal justice system globally, none is viewed and regarded with much criticism, reservation and disdain as the death penalty. That is exactly the case in Nigeria, perhaps, because its consequences on a convict are far more dangerous than other punishments. In recent times, the death penalty as a punishment in Nigeria has attracted more attention by the day, not because the provision of the law is obscure or conflicting on its legality, but because of the increasing number of convicts in our correctional centres, waiting to be executed, with no date in sight, causing more congestion in the face of increasing yearning for prison decongestion. All other punishments are executed almost immediately, especially after the decision in the appellate court. The question being asked in some quarters, amongst others, is: "then why the death penalty?" or "why the reservation/delay in executing the death penalty?". This paper critically examines the death penalty sentence under Nigerian law by tracing the law, issues and challenges, with the view to arrive at a conclusion on whether the present state of the law and practice regarding the death penalty in Nigeria serves the interest of justice, whether it is sustainable and in line with best practices and whether the status quo should be maintained.
. . .
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS
Principal Acts
| Number |
Title |
In force from |
Repealed |
Superseded |
| ACT 838 |
Housewives' Social Security Act 2022 |
Not Yet Inforce |
- |
- |
| ACT 837 |
Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 |
Not Yet Inforce |
- |
- |
| ACT 836 |
Geographical Indications Act 2022 |
18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022] |
Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602] |
- |
| ACT 835 |
Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022 |
Not Yet In Force |
- |
- |
| ACT 834 |
Malaysian Space Board Act 2022 |
4 August 2022 [PU(B) 359/2022] - s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 72 |
- |
- |
Amending Acts
PU(A)
PU(B)
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. |
Title |
Amended by |
In force from |
Section amended |
| ACT 366 |
Poisons Act 1952 (Revised 1989) |
PU(A) 309/2022 |
6 October 2022 |
First Schedule |
| ACT 461 |
Offenders Compulsory Attendance Act 1954 (Revised 1991) |
ACT A1660 |
30 September 2022 [PU(B) 461/2022] |
Sections 2,3, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6A and 8 |
| ACT 593 |
Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) |
ACT A1662 |
1 October 2022 [PU(B) 452/2022] |
Section 307 |
| ACT 91 |
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972) |
ACT A1661 |
1 October 2022 [PU(B) 451/2022] |
Sections 28, 51, 52, 52A, 53, 55 and 68 |
| PU(A) 163/2022 |
Perintah Duti Eksais 2022 |
PU(A) 287/2022 |
1 November 2022 |
Jadual |
Revoked
|
