Back to Top

Print this page
CLJ Bulletin Header
Issue #48/2022
01 December 2022

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

LIM CHON JET & ORS v. WEE AI HUA & ANOR [2022] 10 CLJ 348
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA; LEE HENG CHEONG JCA; CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: S-02(NCvC)(W)-492-03-2019]
27 SEPTEMBER 2022

The language used in a contract of guarantee is vital. If the language is clear, its plain and ordinary meaning must be given. The background knowledge of the contracting parties must also be considered in determining the intention behind it. This includes anything which would have affected the way in which the wordings were used in the guarantee. Another element to consider is the nature of the dealings or the business involved. Where it is clear that the parties are involved in a commercial dealing, the language or the words used in the instruments has to be interpreted in accordance with business common sense and must meet the reasonable expectation of a sensible businessman.

CONTRACT: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Guarantee/indemnity - Late delivery of houses and houses delivered defective - Claim for damages for breach of contract - Court awarded damages - Controller of housing ('COH') failed to pay judgment sums - COH assigned all rights under guarantee to purchasers via deed of assignment to enable purchasers to commence legal action against guarantors - Whether deed of assignment valid - Interpretation of guarantee - Whether claim barred by limitation - Housing (Control and Licensing of Developers) Rules 1980 - Civil Law Act 1956, s. 4(3)

APPEAL UPDATES

  1. Guy Boon Leang lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan [2022] 1 LNS 589 affirming the High Court case of Guy Boon Leang v. PP [2020] 1 LNS 854

  2. Ong Mei Lean v. Loh Sim Seng [2021] 1 LNS 2495 affirming the High Court case of Ong Mei Lean v. Little Cravings Sdn Bhd & Anor [Companies (Winding Up) No.: BA-28NCC-132-03/2019]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2022] 1 LNS 32  

LIM CHEONG KERN v. SIO CHIH CHIEN

Consent of the Director General of Insolvency under s. 8(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 is not required to commence an action against an undischarged bankrupt merely for delivery of vacant possession of a property in which the undischarged bankrupt remained as a trespasser.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Defence - Action commenced by current registered proprietor against previous owner for delivery of vacant possession of property purchased through auction - Allegation that defendant was an undischarged bankrupt and plaintiff required to secure consent under s. 8(1)(a) of Insolvency Act 1967 - Whether current registered proprietor's title to property indefeasible - Whether there was any landlord and tenant relationship between parties

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Counterclaim by previous owner against current registered owner - Allegation of several wrongdoings by current registered owner - Whether opposing contentions could be properly determined without trial - Whether counterclaim ought to be struck out summarily

  • For the appellant - Yogalretchumy; M/s Gunalan & Associates
  • For the respondent - Andrew Wee; M/s Yap Koon Roy & Associates

[2022] 1 LNS 42  

BERLINDA LEE SENG LING v. LOH TINA & ORS

When the plaintiff's prayer affects a party who hasn't been added to the suit, such party has a legal interest in participating and being added as a defendant.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Parties - Intervention - Leave to intervene and be added as defendant - Proposed intervener alleged to have beneficial interest in land which was subject matter of plaintiff's action - Prayers in writ would affect rights of intervener - Whether proposed intervener had legal interest to participate and be added as defendant - Whether proposed intervener ought to be added as defendant

  • For the plaintiff - M/s M Kanesan & Associate
  • For the 1st to 4th defendants - M/s Wong & Loh
  • For the 5th and 6th defendants - M/s Khoo Keat Siew & Co

[2022] 1 LNS 43  

KEEN SOLUTION SDN BHD v. LE APPLE BOUTIQUE HOTEL KLCC SDN BHD & ANOR

Application to strike out a winding up petition should only be resorted to in plain and obvious cases. A petition that discloses some cause of action should be heard in its entirety at the hearing of the petition and the court should not summarily dismiss such petition.

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Striking out - Whether issues raised by respondent require determination in toto at hearing of petition itself - Whether petition discloses some cause of action - Whether petition was obviously unsustainable - Whether there was credible evidence to strike out petition

  • For the 2nd respondent - Gavin Jay Anand Jayapal & Tanusha; M/s Gavin Jayapal
  • For the 1st respondent - Edward Kuruvilla; M/s Kuruvilla, Yeoh & Benjamin
  • For the petitioner - Gan Khong Aik & Kang Mei Yee; M/s Gan Partnership

[2022] 1 LNS 36  

DEVENDRAN MUNIAN lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN

1. Orang yang ditahan bawah undang-undang penahanan pencegahan harus disiasat oleh seorang pegawai penyiasat yang tidak menyebelahi mana-mana pihak. Ini adalah kerana laporan siasatan pegawai penyiasat bawah s. 3(3) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Percegahan) 1985 merupakan satu dokumen penting yang menjadi asas inkuiri yang dijalankan oleh pegawai siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan juga merupakan satu daripada dua dokumen yang akan dipertimbangkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri ('TMDN') dalam memutuskan sama ada suatu perintah tahanan wajar dikeluarkan. Justeru, laporan siasatan yang berat sebelah merupakan perlanggaran prinsip keadilan semulajadi dan akan menjadikan perintah tahanan yang dikeluarkan oleh TMDN cacat.

2. Orang yang ditahan bawah undang-undang penahanan pencegahan berhak untuk mendapatkan salinan rakaman percakapannya yang direkodkan oleh pegawai siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri ('KDN'). Kegagalan pihak KDN untuk membekalkan dokumen tersebut bukan sahaja telah menafikan hak orang yang ditahan untuk mendapatkan dokumennya sendiri. Ia juga telah menafikan haknya untuk mengemukakan pembelaan yang lebih teratur dan lebih berkesan, sebagaimana haknya yang telah dijamin bawah perkara 151(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan ianya merupakan penafian hak yang dijamin bawah prinsip keadilan asasi.

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Perlanggaran prinsip keadilan - Kelewatan pegawai penyiasat kes mengemukakan laporan lengkap kepada pegawai siasatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri dan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri - Pemohon dinafikan haknya untuk berkomunikasi dengan pegawai siasatan dalam bahasa Tamil - Sama ada alasan-alasan yang kredibel telah dikemukakan bagi menjustifikasikan kelewatan - Sama ada kesibukan tugasan prosedur dalam kes-kes lain oleh pegawai penyiasat merupakan alasan yang boleh diterima - Sama ada laporan siasatan yang disediakan oleh pegawai penyiasat adalah berat sebelah - Sama ada wujud perlanggaran prinsip keadilan - Sama ada perintah tahanan menjadi cacat

PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Salinan keterangan pemohon yang direkodkan oleh pegawai siasatan tidak dibekalkan - Saksi-saksi yang dipohon tidak dikemukakan di hadapan lembaga penasihat - Perlanggaran prinsip keadilan - Sama ada pemohon berhak mendapatkan salinan rakaman percakapan - Sama ada pemohon telah dinafikan hak untuk mengemukakan pembelaan yang lebih teratur dan lebih berkesan - Sama ada wujud perlanggaran prinsip keadilan apabila rakaman percakapan tidak dibekalkan - Sama ada kegagalan mengemukakan saksi-saksi di hadapan lembaga penasihat menjurus kepada ketidakpatuhan prosedur

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - N Sivananthan & Nabila Habib; T/n Sivananthan
  • Bagi pihak responden - Farasyeriza Md Zabani & Nuur Izham Ismail, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang, Kementerian Dalam Negeri

[2022] 1 LNS 61  

WENZHUAN SDN BHD lwn. JABATAN KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN (PERSEKUTUAN) NEGERI KELANTAN

Perenggan 1A Jadual Pertama kepada Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960 telah menegaskan bahawa salah satu faktor yang boleh diambilkira dalam menentukan nilai pasaran adalah jualan semasa. Justeru, adalah sukar untuk membuat justifikasi sesuatu nilai pasaran yang munasabah dan berpatutan dengan menggunakan bukti perbandingan yang terlalu lama.

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Pengambilan tanah - Pampasan - Penentuan nilai pasaran - Perbandingan dibuat terhadap pindahmilik yang berlaku agak lama - Sama ada awad pampasan yang diberikan oleh pentadbir tanah mencerminkan nilai pasaran semasa - Sama ada jualan semasa merupakan faktor yang diambilkira dalam menentukan nilai pasaran - Sama ada pemohon telah diprejudis dengan kaedah penilaian yang dibuat oleh responden - Sama ada perbandingan boleh dibuat ke atas tanah-tanah yang mempunyai ciri-ciri yang berbeza - Akta Pengambilan Tanah 1960, s. 38(1)

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Ahmad Faaiz B Ahmad Mahir; T/n Faaiz & Norilham
  • Bagi pihak responden - Adam Mohamed; Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang, Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan

CLJ 2022 Volume 10 (Part 2)

The legislative intent behind the enactment of s. 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 is for the approval of Bank Negara Malaysia to be obtained if the agreement entered into will lead to the acquisition or disposal of shares. The prohibition is not against the entering into of a contract. Rather, the prohibition is against the carrying out of the contract which would lead to the acquisition or disposal of more than 5% shares of a licensee without the prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia.
Detik Ria Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Prudential Corporation Holding Ltd & Anor [2022] 10 CLJ 171 [CA]

|

CONTRACT: Conditional contract - Approval of authority - Parties entered into call/put option agreement ('CPOA') - Granting of call option in respect of shares in company - Whether prior approval of Bank Negara Malaysia required to enter into CPOA - Whether approval obtained - Whether approval merely condition to enforceability of CPOA - Whether contract tainted with illegality - Insurance Act 1996, s. 67

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Statutes - Insurance Act 1996 - Section 67 - Prohibitions and restrictions - Whether literal/purposive approach to be given in interpreting section - Whether against carrying out of transaction without obtaining Bank Negara Malaysia's approval

 

NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA

  • For the appellants - Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Mohd Hafarizam Harun, Abu Bakar Isa Ramat, Tey Jun Ren, Wong Ming Yen & Nor Hazira Abu Haiyan; M/s Jr Tey
  • For the respondents - Gopal Sri Ram, Austen Pereira, Saritha Devi Kirupalani & Nur Ainnabila Rosdi; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co

(i) Parties are strictly bound by their pleadings. The court is barred from deciding a civil claim based on issues or facts not raised by litigating parties. Thus, the claimant's appeal on the question of contributory negligence in this case could not be grounded on an unpleaded issue or a fresh submission which was not adjudicated at the trial stage. Further, the causative link between the unreasonable delay of the parents bringing the claimant to the hospital for treatment and the brain damage that occurred was within the purview of the trial court which would not warrant the intervention of the appellate court; (ii) A court would only intervene in regard to awards that are manifestly excessive or wrong in principle and where the wrong multiplier is used for post-trial or future damages. The court will have to scrutinise as to the entitlement of the claimant in respect of awards where the damages sought had not been proved and where the awards given are plainly inadequate.
Kuala Terengganu Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Ahmad Thaqif Amzar Ahmad Huzairi & Other Appeals [2022] 10 CLJ 209 [CA]

TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Liability and quantum - Appeal against - Liability partly apportioned to infant's parents to extent of 30% due to parents' failure to heed advice to have infant warded - Parents claimed they were not parties to suit - Whether appeal on question of contributory negligence could be grounded on unpleaded issue - Whether there was flaw in award of special damages - Whether assessment of multiplier applied for award of future damages consistent with experts' opinions - Whether award of aggravated damages set aside - Whether damages sought proved - Whether awards given adequate

TORT: Damages - Assessment - Quantum of - Special damages - Whether there was flaw in award of special damages - Assessment of multiplier to be applied for award of future damages - Whether consistent with experts' opinions - Whether award of aggravated damages set aside - Whether damages sought proved - Whether awards given adequate

 

 

HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the appellant/plaintiff - MS Dhillon, KB Karthi & Jeremy Balang; M/s PS Ranjan & Co
  • For the respondents/1st & 2nd defendants - Fozi Addhwa Mohamad Fozi; M/s Azman, Wan Helmi & Assocs
  • For the respondents/3rd-12th defendants - Habibah Haron & Salwati Umar, SFCs; Jabatan Peguam Negara

(i) Persons to whom land is alienated under the National Land Code are barred from making any claim against the State Authority on the ground that there is a shortfall in the land area as compared to the area in the provisional alienation; and (ii) It is only upon a plan approved by the Director of Survey and Mapping that the boundaries and boundary marks of a piece of land become conclusive.
Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Nusa Kota Sdn Bhd [2022] 10 CLJ 231 [CA]

|

LAND LAW: Alienation - Claim against State Authority - Shortfall in land area compared to area in provisional alienation - Whether claim barred - Whether size and area of land as per final title conclusive - Whether re-measurement could be ordered to ascertain actual area or size of land - National Land Code, s. 83(4)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Res judicata - Striking off - Claim struck out on merits before trial commenced - Whether there should no longer be any case - Whether trial judge correct in granting reliefs and/or remedies that directly or indirectly affected rights and interests of party

 

VAZEER ALAM MYDIN MEERA JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA

  • For the 1st-3rd appellants - Husna Abdul Halim, Maizatul Munirah Abdul Rahman & Amira Haziqah Zulkifli); Selangor State Legal Advisor
  • For the 4th appellant - Justin Voon Tiam Yu, Alvin Lai Kok Wing & Lin Pei Sin; M/s Justin Voon Chooi & Wing
  • For the respondent - Jeyakumar Palakrishnar & Nik Asilah Aziz; M/s Zahir Jeya & Zainal

(i) Based on s. 469(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2016, the court's discretionary power in hearing a winding-up petition is either to dismiss the petition, adjourn the hearing of the petition or make an interim order, or any other order as the court thinks fit. Although the phrase 'any other order as the court thinks fit' seems to provide a wide discretionary power to the court, it is not without limitation as the order made must relate to the winding-up petition where the ultimate result is either to allow the application for the winding-up or to dismiss it; (ii) A court order that imposes a condition for the company to pay a judgment sum within a certain period of time before a winding-up order is made effective is fair and reasonable as a company is given time to pay its debts; the condition is also relevant because it relates to the winding-up application where the ultimate result is the winding-up of the company. A conditional winding-up order is therefore in accordance with the provision of the said s. 469(1)(c).
Prolink Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Ambank Islamic Bhd [2022] 10 CLJ 247 [CA]

|

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up - Conditional winding-up - Order for - Whether High Court Judge empowered to make conditional winding-up order - Whether condition to pay judgment sum within certain period relate to winding-up of company as its non-compliance would result in granting of winding-up application - Whether fell within provision 'any other order as the court thinks fit' under s. 469(1)(c) of Companies Act 2016

WORDS & PHRASES: 'any other order as the court thinks fit' - Companies Act 2016, s. 469(1)(c) - Whether wide in its natural and ordinary meaning - Purport and intention of Parliament - Court ordered conditional winding-up order against company - Whether condition to pay judgment sum within certain period relate to winding-up of company as its non-compliance would result in granting of winding-up application - Whether fell within provision

 

YAACOB MD SAM JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA

  • For the appellant - Kunamony Kandiah; M/s Mohd Latip & Assocs
  • For the respondent - Irwan Ismail & Muhammad Izzat Zainal; M/s Lee & Koh

Syarikat insurans yang telah membayar ganti rugi bawah polisi insurans selepas merekodkan perintah persetujuan di mahkamah, setelah kenderaan yang dilindungi bawah polisi itu mengalami kemalangan, tidak boleh membawa tindakan untuk indemniti berdasarkan dokumen penyerahan hak oleh penumpang-penumpang tanpa penyerahan hak mutlak. Syarikat insurans tiada kausa tindakan atas namanya sendiri bawah doktrin subrogasi.
Puspakom Sdn Bhd lwn. Multi-Purpose Insurans Bhd & Satu Kes Yang Lain [2022] 10 CLJ 261 [CA]

INSURANS: Tuntutan - Indemniti - Polisi dikeluarkan oleh syarikat insurans kepada pemilik bas - Penumpang-penumpang bas dibayar tuntutan berikutan kemalangan - Sama ada syarikat insurans boleh mendapat indemniti untuk bayaran yang telah dibuat dan yang masih tertunggak - Sama ada syarikat insurans mempunyai locus standi untuk membawa tuntutan - Sama ada dokumen penyerahan hak yang diberi penumpang-penumpang bersifat mutlak atau bersyarat - Sama ada tindakan atas nama syarikat insurans hanya jika penyerahan hak mutlak - Akta Undang-undang Sivil 1956, s. 4(3)

 

 

ZALEHA YUSOF HMR
YAACOB MD SAM HMR
LAU BEE LAN HMR

(Rayuan Sivil No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-424-03-2017)
  • Bagi pihak perayu - Nadzarin Wok Nordin, Shazryll Aizad & Rachel Loi Guong Li; T/n Nadzarin Kuok Puthucheary & Tan
  • Bagi pihak responden - Sreether Sundaram; T/n Murali B Pillai & Assocs
(Rayuan Sivil No: W-01(NCVC)(W)-95-03-2017)
  • Bagi pihak perayu - Zureen Ellina Hj Mohd Dom, PKP & Saffizah Omar, PK; Jabatan Peguam Negara
  • Bagi pihak responden - Sreether Sundaram; T/n Murali B Pillai & Assocs

Aturan 80 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 memperuntukkan tindakan pentadbiran untuk mendapatkan kuasa mentadbir harta pusaka seorang yang telah meninggal dunia atau untuk mendapatkan pelaksanaan amanah bawah arahan mahkamah. Apabila wujud kebuntuan dalam pelaksanaan wasiat, seperti dalam kes ini, pelantikan Amanah Raya Berhad sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka individu yang telah meninggal dunia adalah wajar dan selari dengan peruntukan s. 11 Akta Perbadanan Amanah Raya 1995.
Tulasi Bhaljit Singh lwn. Sarjit Singh Harjan Singh & Yang Lain [2022] 10 CLJ 289 [CA]

Wasiat - Pentadbiran harta pusaka - Pertikaian berkaitan pelaksanaan wasiat - Fasal dalam wasiat untuk pemberian mutlak RM40,000 sebelum wasiat dilaksanakan - Penerima pemberian mutlak telah meninggal dunia - Sama ada wasiat menyatakan cara atau masa pemberian mutlak - Sama ada pemberian mutlak boleh dipegang oleh pentadbir atau pemegang amanah harta pusaka - Sama ada Amanah Raya Berhad wajar dilantik sebagai pemegang amanah pemberian mutlak - Sama ada pemberian mutlak dilaksanakan dengan pembayaran kepada pemegang amanah harta pusaka

 

 

MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH HMR
HAS ZANAH MEHAT HMR
DARRYL GOON SIEW CHYE HMR

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Avtar Singh Prem Singh; T/n Avtar
  • Bagi pihak responden pertama & kedua - Apparao Apana & Sabarina Mohamed Sidek; T/n Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Assocs
  • Bagi pihak responden ketiga - Mohamad Fitri Khalis Ahmad; Amanah Raya Berhad

In considering whether to grant a Fortuna injunction, the court has taken the Salford approach ie, the plaintiff need only show that there is a prima facie dispute over the debt which is governed by an arbitration agreement. The court is not required to investigate whether the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds but instead ought to hold the parties to their bargain to resolve a dispute over a debt by their chosen method of dispute resolution to arbitrate the matter.
V Medical Services M Sdn Bhd v. Swissray Asia Healthcare Co Ltd [2022] 10 CLJ 313 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction - Fortuna injunction - Application to restrain filing of winding-up petition - Whether statutory notice of demand issued based on debt disputed on substantial grounds - Whether there was substantial bona fide dispute - Whether need only show there was prima facie dispute - Salford approach - Whether applicable - Whether dispute ought to be determined by arbitration - Whether injunction ought to be allowed

 

 

LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC

  • For the plaintiff - Eugene Jayaraj, David Soosay & Alani Farhah (Pdk); M/s Haris Ibrahim Kandiah Partnership
  • For the defendant - Aawaisha Pillai & Chuah Jo-Shua; M/s Zaid Ibrahim & Co

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. WOMEN IN COMPETITIVE SPORTS: BALANCING THE RIGHTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL AND TRANSGENDER WOMAN [Read excerpt]
    by Wadzi Vivian Aboki[i] Abigail Benjamin Kahuwai[ii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxiv

    2. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxiv
    logo
    NIGERIA

    WOMEN IN COMPETITIVE SPORTS:
    BALANCING THE RIGHTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL AND TRANSGENDER WOMAN

    by
    Wadzi Vivian Aboki[i]
    Abigail Benjamin Kahuwai[ii]

    ABSTRACT

    Women, like their male counterparts, enjoy basic fundamental rights. The course of human interactions has led, in some instances, to the need to introduce and enforce additional protection for women and persons that would otherwise be disadvantaged if such additional protections were not given. Sports have been part of human activities undertaken as recreation or a career. Although the competitive sport was, at some point in human history, an exclusive male preserve, the umbrella of exclusivity has long been torn, and women have been welcomed, embraced and encouraged to participate in their own rights, and compete against their fellow women in separate and distinct categories from that of the male. The categorisation was done taking into cognisance the biological makeup of the male and female beings in the bid to ensure fairness to all participants. A transgender woman has the right to participate and compete in sporting activities. This article examined the fairness or otherwise of allowing the transgender woman to compete in the same category as the biological woman in sporting activities. Apart from interrogating and exploring the topic, we have made recommendations that would hopefully help resolve the many controversies generated by allowing the transgender woman to compete in the same category as the biological woman. The approach of research used is the doctrinal method.

    . . .

    [i] Faculty of Law, Bingham University Karu, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Email: aboki.wadzi@binghamuni.edu.ng.

    [ii] Nigerian Law School, Bwari, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: abigal.benjamin@nigerian lawschool.edu.ng.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

  2. AN ANALYSIS OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT: THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE [Read excerpt]
    by Charity Oganya Ogbole[i]Appolos Dimas[ii]Adamu Adamu Jauro[iii] [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxv

    3. [2022] 1 LNS(A) cxv
    logo
    NIGERIA

    AN ANALYSIS OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT:
    THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE

    by
    Charity Oganya Ogbole[i]
    Appolos Dimas[ii]
    Adamu Adamu Jauro[iii]

    ABSTRACT

    The right to life is one of the vital fundamental rights protected by the constitution of most countries and other international treaties and conventions. In the bid to ensure the right to life, the right to healthcare is also fundamental. This is because if there is no health, one cannot enjoy life, not to mention the risk to a country's population if a disease or an epidemic should break out for a lack of healthcare. Good health is essential to life and can only be achieved if available, accessible, acceptable and quality healthcare facilities and services exist. This is why the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights set up a framework to ensure that people all over the world have access to quality health care. This paper discussed accessibility, availability, acceptability and quality healthcare as a fundamental right. It was discovered that there are so many impediments to the realisation of the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of healthcare in Nigeria. It was further discovered that some of the impediments include non-justiciability of Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution, non-fulfilment of Nigeria's obligations as a signatory to treaties and conventions on healthcare, corruption, incessant industrial actions, poor medical infrastructures, just to mention a few. The article made some recommendations and it ends with a conclusion.

    . . .

    [i] LLB (Hons), BL, a Private Legal Practitioner. Email: coogbole9@gmail.com.

    [ii] LLB (Hons), BL, LLM, a Lecturer with the Nigerian Law School, Yola Campus and a PhD Candidate at the University of Jos. Email:dimazgubezz@yahoo.com.

    [iii] LLB (Hons), BL, a Lecturer with Federal Polytechnic Kaltungo Gombe State. Email: adamuaj@gmail.com.

    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealed Superseded
ACT 841 Pensions Act 1951 (Revised 2022) 15 November 2022 Date appointed for coming into operation of this revised edition pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2022; First enacted in 1951 as Ordinance No 1 of 1951 - -
ACT 840 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce - -
ACT 839 Independent Police Conduct Commission Act 2022 1 July 2023 [PU(B) 574/2022] - -
ACT 838 Housewives' Social Security Act 2022 1 December 2022 [PU(B) 509/2022] - -
ACT 837 Malaysian Border Security Agency (Dissolution) Act 2022 16 November 2022 [PU(B) 558/2022] Malaysian Border Security Agency Act 2017 [ACT 799] -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1677 Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 438
ACT A1676 Goods Vehicle Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 294
ACT A1675 Windfall Profit Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 592
ACT A1674 Departure Levy (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 813
ACT A1673 Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2022 Not Yet Inforce ACT 791

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 371/2022 Proclamation - Summon Parliament 30 November 2022 1 December 2022 ACT 000
PU(A) 370/2022 Ministers of The Federal Government Order 2022 24 November 2022 24 November 2022 ACT 2
PU(A) 369/2022 Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection of Tolls) (Damansara-Shah Alam Elevated Expressway) Order 2022 17 November 2022 1 December 2022 ACT 306
PU(A) 368/2022 Establishment of Marine Parks Malaysia (Amendment) Order 2022 17 November 2022 1 January 2023 PU(A) 401/1994
PU(A) 367/2022 Entertainments Duty Act 1953 Entertainments Duty (Exemption) (No. 3) Order 2022 16 November 2022 1 January 2022 ACT 103

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 593/2022 Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 30 November 2022 2 December 2022 to 15 December 2022 ACT 235
PU(B) 592/2022 Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12 30 November 2022 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2022 ACT 235
PU(B) 591/2022 Notification of Values of Palm Kernel Under Section 12 30 November 2022 1 December 2022 to 31 December 2022 ACT 235
PU(B) 590/2022 Notification of Application For Registration of New Plant Variety and Grant of Breeder's Right (Mstar 1) 30 November 2022 1 December 2022 ACT 634
PU(B) 589/2022 Penal Code - Corrigendum 29 November 2022   ACT 574

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
ACT 574 Penal Code (Revised 1997) PU(B) 589/2022   Sections 89, 300 and 499
PU(B) 514/2022 Notis Di Bawah Subperaturan 11(5A) PU(B) 581/2022   Jadual
PU(B) 514/2022 Notice Under Subregulation 11(5A) PU(B) 581/2022   Schedule
PU(B) 514/2022 Notis Di Bawah Subperaturan 11(5A) PU(B) 577/2022   Jadual
PU(B) 514/2022 Notice Under Subregulation 11(5A) PU(B) 577/2022   Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 224/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022 PU(A) 327/2022 12 Oktober 2022
PU(A) 224/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 7) Order 2022 PU(A) 327/2022 12 October 2022
PU(A) 282/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 10) 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022
PU(A) 282/2022 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 10) Order 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 October 2022 to 7 November 2022
PU(A) 256/2022 Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 9) 2022 PU(A) 319/2022 8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022

Copyright © 2022 CLJ Malaysia Sdn Bhd To unsubscribe click here