Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• Diikuti oleh kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v DATUK TAN CHENG SWEE &
ANOR
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat
[2012] MLJU 60 (FC)
I would think that the attitude of this Court towards its previous
decisions such as Utra Badi and Vickneswary upon questions of law
should, in my opinion be the same. It is of supreme importance that
people may know with certainty what the law is, and this end can
only be attained by a loyal adherence to the doctrine of stare
decisis. Little respect will be paid to our judgments if we overthrow
that one day which we have resolved the day before. "We cannot
say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something
different tomorrow", per Lord Reid in West Midland Baptist (Trust)
Association Inc v Birmingham Corporation [1970] AC 874. The
instant appeal is no doubt an important case. Disciplinary
Authorities will be confused if we are to usurp their powers by
telling them you should order an oral hearing in one case while in
another you need not. They are the ones entrusted by the General
Orders to make that decision and it is not for the court to usurp that
function.
Asia General Equipment and Supplies Sdn Bhd &
Ors v Mohd Sari bin Datuk OKK Hj Nuar & Ors
[2012] 3 MLJ 49 (FC)
Federal Court.
obiter dictum is a mere chance remark by the
court and is used in contradistinction to ratio
decidendi – the rule of law for which a case is
authority.
JOAN FUNG @ JOAN FUNG NYUK LEE V ALLIANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
[2011] MLJU 668
The Defendants submitted that this Court is
stare decisis bound by the decision of the
Federal Court in Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak
Shell Berhad, supra. I shall now proceed to
examine the judgments of the Federal Court in
Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak Shell supra. In
determining whether this Court is bound, I will
have to determine the ratio decidendi of the
Federal Court in Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak
Shell supra.
Jika ada ratio decidendi konflik ?
• Parlan bin Dadeh v Public Prosecutor [2008] 6 MLJ 19
FEDERAL COURT
The ratio decidendi of Toh Su Kuan is thus inconsistent with settled
legal principles. In particular it conflicts with the correct statement
of the law in the Court of Appeal case of Wong Nam Loi v Public
Prosecutor [1997] 3 MLJ 795 and the application of the principles in
the judgment of this court in Tunde Apatira. The Court of Appeal is
therefore justified in this case in disregarding Toh Su Kuan as the
rule of precedent allows it to choose which of its past conflicting
decisions it will follow. As a matter of fact the case ought not to be
followed as it cannot stand with the judgment of this court in Tunde
Apatira. In any event this court is not concerned with the judgment
in Toh Su Kuan as it is per incuriam. The submission advanced by
the appellant is therefore without any merit.
Pemakaian ?
• Ada dua cara ;
i. Menegak – Mahkamah bawahan harus
mengikuti keputusan mahkamah atasan.
ii. Mendatar – Mengikut keputusannya
sendiri atau mahkamah yang sama taraf.
• Pemakaian doktrin ini di Malaysia adalah
diasakan kepada pemakaian doktrin ini di
United Kingdom.
Pemakaian di UK ?
Hirarki Mahkamah di UK ?
House of Lord
Court of Appeal
Magistret CT County CT
House of Lord ?
• Sebelum 1966 – keputusan mengikat
mahkamah bawahan dan keputusan sendiri.
• Selepas 1966 – Lord Gardiner – Selepas dari
tarikh tersebut tidak akan mengikat dengan
keputusan mereka sendiri.
• Parktikalnya – Jarang melencong dari
keputusan mereka sendiri.
• Kes ?
Conway v. Rimmer & Anor [1968] AC 910.
Court of Appeal
• Ada dua bahagian iaitu Sivil dan Jenayah.
• Sivil Divison ?
• Keputusan mengikat mahkamah bawahan.
• Terikat dengan keputusan House of Lord.
• Terikat dengan keputusannya sendiri.
• Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944] KN 718.
i. Boleh memilih dianttara dua keputusannya yang
bercanggah.
ii. Boleh menolak keputusan sendiri jika bercanggah
dengan keputusan HOL walaupaun keputusan
tersebut tidak ditolak sendiri oleh HOL.
iii. Jika keputusan itu dibuat secara per incuriam.
Court of Appeal
Criminal Devision
Mahkamah Persekutuan
Mahkamah Penghulu
1985 – 1994 ?
Mahkamah Agong
Mahkamah Penghulu
POST 1994 ?
Mahkamah Persekutuan
Mahkamah Rayuan
Mahkamah Penghulu
Penyusunan Mahkamah 1994
• Akta Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Pindaan)
1994 (Akta A886) dan Akta Mahkamah
Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1995 (A909).
• Pindaan ini telah;
i. Menukar nama Mahkamah Agong kepada
Mahkamah Persekutuan.
ii. Menubuhkan Mahkamah Rayuan.
Sebelum 1985 ?
• Majlis Privy merupakan mahkamah rayuan tertinggi.
• Mengikat semua mahkamah di Malaysia dalam kes-kes rayuan dari
Malaysia.
• Kes rayuan dari negara-negara lain yg in pari materia juga mengikat.
• Selepas 1985 hanya mempengaruhi.
• Kes rujukan:
i. Khalid Panjang & Ors v. PP [1964] 2 MLJ 108.
ii. Mirza Akhabar v. King Emperor, LR 67 IA 336.
iii. Read v. Bishop of Lincoln [1893] AC 644.
iv. Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan v. TWU [1996] 4 CLJ
687.
v. Majlis Pembandaran Pulau Pinang [1999] 3 CLJ 74.
Mahkamah Persekutuan sebelum 1984
• Terikat dengan keputusan Majlis Privy.
• Mengikat mahkamah bawahan.
• Terikat dengan keputusan sendiri (Sivil).
• Jenayah tidak terikat secara ketat.
• Kes rujukan:
i. Lee Hoo Boon [1966] 2 M.LJ. 167.
ii. Henry v. De Cruz [1949] NLJ supp. 25.
iii. Re Lee Gee Chong [1965] 1 M.LJ. 102.
iv. PP v. Joseph Chin Saiko [1972] 2 MLJ 129.
v. PP v. Ooi Khai Chin & Anor [1979] 1 MLJ 112.
vi. Oie Hee Koi [1966] 2 MLJ 183.
vii. Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd. [1980] 1 MLJ 304.
Mahkamah Agong 1985 – 1994 ?
• 1 Jan. 1985 Mahkamah Persekutuan ditukar
kepada Mahkamah Agong.
• Adakah terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah
Persekutuan sebelumnya?
• Kes ?
i. Lorrain Esme Osman [1986] 2 MLJ 288 – Ya.
ii. Government of Malaysia & UEM v. Lim Kit
Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 – Tidak. [Lihat obiter
kes ini]
Mahkamah Persekutuan Post 1994
• Lihat pindaan berikut;
i. Seksyen 2 Akta Perlembagaan (Pindaan) 1994.
ii. Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1994 iaitu seksyen 5(c) telah
meminda seksyen 8 dengan menggantikan perkataan ‘Supreme’ kepada
‘Federal’.
iii. Seksyen 17 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1995
Apa-apa prosiding yang belum selesai dihadapan Mahkamah Agong pada
23hb Jun 1994 hendaklah disambung atau diteruskan, mengikut mana-
mana yang berkenaan, di hadapan Mahkamah Persekutuan dan bagi
maksud ini Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah mempunyai dan
menjalankan semua kuasa Mahkamah Agong sebelum 24hb Jun1994.
– Kes ?
i. Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 3 MLJ 514.
ii. Malaysian National Insurance [1997] 2 MLJ 165.
iii. Kumpulan Peransang Selangor [1997] 1 MLJ 789.
iv. Koperasi Rakyat [2000] 2 AMR 2311.
v. Dalip Bhagwan Singh [1998] MLJ 1 MLJ 1.
Mahkamah Rayuan ?
• Terikat dengan keputusan sendiri?
i. Kesultanan Pahang [1997] 2 MLJ 701.
ii. Kwong Yik Bank Berhad [1999] 1 AMR 377
iii. Syarikat Kayu Bersatu Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [1995]
1 CLJ 113.
iv. Harris Solid State (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1996] 3 MLJ
489.
Mahkamah Tinggi.
• Terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Atasan.
• Mengikat Mahkamah Bawahan.
• Kes-kes ?
i. Sundralingam [1967] 2 MLJ 211.
ii. Hassan bin Isahak [1948] MLJ Supp. 179.
Mahkamah Luar ?
• Mempengaruhi dalam kes-kes yang in pari
materia.
• Kes-kes ?
i. Leonard v. Nachiappa Chetty [1923] 4
FMSLR 265.
ii. Jamil bin Harun [1948] 1 MLJ 217.