Back to Top

    CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2015, Vol 25
19 June 2015



Print this page
Introduction:

To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=subscription

Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/?page=bulletinsubscribe


New This Week

1. Cases(s) Of The Week

a) PP v. MOHD DZAHIR AHMAD

2. Latest Cases

a) Legal Network Series

b) CLJ 2015 Volume 4 (Part 7)

3. Articles

a) Legal Network Series Article(s)

4. Legislation Highlights

a) Principal Acts

b) Amending Acts

c) PU(A)

d) PU(B)


CASES(S) OF THE WEEK

PP v. MOHD DZAHIR AHMAD
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
BALIA YUSOF WAHI JCA, ROHANA YUSUF JCA, TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT JCA
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: K-05-23-01-2013]
30 DECEMBER 2014

CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Offence of trafficking - Accused person acquitted and discharged - Appeal against - Drugs found in house frequented by other persons - Defence of no knowledge - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether Judicial Commissioner (`JC') erred when re-evaluating on issue of possession - Whether JC considered and evaluated defence evidence sufficiently - Whether there was failure to establish prima facie case against accused person - Whether JC's judgment should be upheld - Whether accused person entitled to order of acquittal and discharge

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Drugs found in house frequented by other persons - Defence of no knowledge - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether Judicial Commissioner (`JC') erred when re-evaluating on issue of possession - Whether JC considered and evaluated defence evidence sufficiently - Whether there was failure to establish prima facie case against accused person - Whether JC's judgment should be upheld - Whether accused person entitled to order of acquittal and discharge

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2012] 1 LNS 1367

PP lwn. ALI JALAYERIDARBANDI MOUSA & SATU LAGI

KETERANGAN: Ekshibit - Pemutusan rantaian keterangan - Perbezaan barang kes yang dirampas - Perbezaan berat dadah - Sama ada perbezaan dalam jumlah berat dadah yang telah dirampas menimbulkan keraguan dan memutuskan rantaian keterangan kes pendakwaaan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Mens rea - Inferen daripda fakta - Pengetahuan berkenaan dadah - Serbuk-serbuk kristal diikat pada kedua-dua belah kaki dengan kemas - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan dadah

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 - Seksyen 39B(1)(a) - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Dadah jenis methamphetamine seberat 203.9 gram dan 269.7 gram - Sama ada tertuduh telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) - Sama ada semua intipati di bawah s. 39B(1)(a) telah dibuktikan - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan dadah - Sama ada dadah yang dimiliki oleh tertuduh adalah untuk tujuan pengedaran

[2012] 1 LNS 1368

ASRI KASIM lwn. PP & KES YANG LAIN

KETERANGAN: Rasuah - Penerimaan rasuah oleh pegawai badan awam - Wang perangkap - Kegagalan mencatit tarikh dan masa wang perangkap diserahkan kepada pengadu - Sama ada terdapat kelompangan yang memihak kepada tertuduh

KETERANGAN: Saski - Kredibiliti - Saksi bebas - Motif niat jahat - Sama ada saksi-saksi mempunyai motif niat jahat untuk mengenakan atau menganiaya tertuduh - Sama ada saksi-saksi mempunyai sebarang kepentingan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Hukuman - Kesalahan penerimaan rasuah - Hukuman pemenjaraan minima 14 hari - Kepentingan awam - Hal-ehwal keseluruhan keadaan - Sama ada hukuman minima membawa sebarang kesan pencegahan kepada pesalah rasuah - Sama ada hukuman minima 14 hari telah mengambil kira hal-ehwal keseluruhan keadaan dan kepentingan awam

[2014] 1 LNS 460

WONG CHEE KHEONG lwn. PP

KETERANGAN: Saksi - Keterangan saksi yang tidak disoal balas - Saksi menghilangkan diri sebelum pemeriksaan utama selesai - Sama ada keterangan saksi yang tidak menghabiskan keterangannya dan gagal disoal balas boleh diterima - Sama ada s. 32 Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pendakwaan - Pemanggilan saksi - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi telah menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada terdapat keperluan untuk memanggil saksi untuk membuktikan kes pendakwaan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Hukuman - Faktor kepentingan awam - Kesalahan di bawah s. 84(1) Akta Perindustrian Sekuriti 1983 - Hukuman 24 bulan penjara dan denda 3 juta, jika gagal 6 bulan penjara - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dikenakan terlampau - Sama ada kesalahan yang telah dilakukan adalah serius dan membawa kesan langsung dan buruk kepada ekonomi negara

[2014] 1 LNS 875

TEOH SIK KAI v. PEMBANGUNAN BPSP SDN BHD & ANOR

CONTRACT: Mistake - Mutual/common mistake - Sale and purchase transaction of Lots 2008 and 2009 between 2nd defendant and deceased - Lands burial ground belonging to Daniel Logan - Whether made under common mistake of fact and therefore a void contract - Whether the two lots of land were the same land meant by parties - Whether any mutual mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement – Whether Contracts Act 1950, s. 21 applied

CONTRACT: Performance - Processing transfer of land from Daniel Logan to the 2nd defendant or the deceased - Whether s. 38 of the Contracts Act 1950 applied - Whether defendants' respective promise could be facilitated via an application for rectification of the titles - Defendants' failure to effect transfer - Whether defendants in breach of the agreement - Whether defendants liable to plaintiff for damages - Contracts Act 1950, s. 74

LAND LAW: Sale of land - Transfer - Deceased purchased Lots 2008 and 2009 from 2nd defendant - Whether plaintiff as administrator of the deceased's estate was the rightful beneficiary to Lots 2008 and 2009 - Whether defendants bound to effect transfer of Lots 2008 and 2009 into deceased's name or plaintiff as administrator of the deceased's estate

[2014] 1 LNS 947

TRADELIFT INDOPALM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD v. WARIS SELESA SDN BHD

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Petition - Affidavit in opposition - Filed one day before date of hearing - Non-compliance with r. 30(1) of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 - Whether affidavit admissible - Whether inability of respondent company to pay debt presumed

COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Petition - Tender of third party cheque to settle petitioner's debt - Whether presumption of insolvency rebutted - Four creditors supported petition - Whether payment to petitioner alone would constitute a preferential payment to detriment of creditors - Eleventh hour attempts by respondent to bring in new partners and investors - Whether a breach of s. 223 of the Companies Act 1965

CLJ 2015 Volume 4 (Part 7)

COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

Audrey Gertrude De Souza v. Sunway D'mont Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Contract Law - Use of wrong sale and purchase agreement - Whether contravention of Regulations went to substance of contract) [2015] 4 CLJ 853 [CA]

PP v. Ling Leh Hoe
(Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Whether plea of guilt automatically entitled accused person to lesser punishment) [2015] 4 CLJ 869 [CA]

PP v. Mohd Dzahir Ahmad
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Whether there was failure to establish prima facie case against accused person) [2015] 4 CLJ 880 [CA]

Sundarajan Sokalingam v. Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas; Badan Peguam Malaysia (Intervener)
(Legal Profession - Disciplinary Committee - Findings - Whether complied with provisions and rules of Legal Profession Act 1976) [2015] 4 CLJ 892 [CA]

Wong Kuan Kay v. Rohaizad Othman & Anor; Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah (Third Party) & Another Appeal
(Damages; Tort - Quantum - Action for recovery of loss and damages for personal injury) [2015] 4 CLJ 902 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Ann Joo Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Chye Hup Seng Sdn Bhd
(Company Law - Winding up - Application for validation order pursuant to s. 223 Companies Act 1965) [2015] 4 CLJ 916 [HC]

Dato' Abd Halim Ali & Anor v. Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Tort; Civil Procedure; Evidence - Defamation - Libel - Determination of natural and ordinary meaning of alleged defamatory words) [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [HC]

Syarikat Steelcon Sdn Bhd v. Kee Cheng Teck
(Tort - Malicious prosecution - Filing of winding up petition against solvent company) [2015] 4 CLJ 968 [HC]

Tradimas Sdn Bhd v. Metrobrite Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Partnership - Dispute as to existence - Essential elements of partnership) [2015] 4 CLJ 995 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Pleadings - Defamation - Defects in pleading - Striking out - Failure to state specific words complained of alleged to be defamatory - Whether pleaded case embarrassing and defective - Whether failure to specify which parts of impugned article were defamatory would render pleading as defective and liable to be struck out
Dato' Abd Halim Ali & Anor v. Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Kamaludin Md Said J) [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [HC]

COMPANY LAW

Winding up - Disposition of properties - Validation order - Application for validation order pursuant to s. 223 Companies Act 1965 - Application by way of notice of application - Whether procedurally wrong and could not stand - Whether should be by way of notice of motion - Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972, r. 7(1) - Applicant's action in making and filing application without leave - Whether allowed - Companies Act 1965, s. 226(2)
Ann Joo Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Chye Hup Seng Sdn Bhd
(Abu Bakar Jais JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 916 [HC]

Winding up - Disposition of properties - Validation order - Application for validation order pursuant to s. 223 Companies Act 1965 - Company wound up before agreements signed - Whether transactions beneficial to general body of creditors - Whether there was honest and good intention in executing transactions - Whether validation of agreements should be granted - Res judicata - Whether applicable
Ann Joo Corporation Sdn Bhd v. Chye Hup Seng Sdn Bhd
(Abu Bakar Jais JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 916 [HC]

CONTRACT LAW

Breach - Sale and purchase agreement, breach of - Use of wrong sale and purchase agreement - Effect of contravention of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Whether appellant's failure to pay balance of purchase price entitled respondent to terminate SPA - Whether contravention of Regulations went to substance of contract - Whether contravention rendered SPA null and void or voidable
Audrey Gertrude De Souza v. Sunway D'mont Kiara Sdn Bhd
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 853 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW

Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Offence of trafficking - Accused person acquitted and discharged - Appeal against - Drugs found in house frequented by other persons - Defence of no knowledge - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether Judicial Commissioner ('JC') erred when re-evaluating on issue of possession - Whether JC considered and evaluated defence evidence sufficiently - Whether there was failure to establish prima facie case against accused person - Whether JC's judgment should be upheld - Whether accused person entitled to order of acquittal and discharge
PP v. Mohd Dzahir Ahmad
(Balia Yusof Wahi, Rohana Yusuf, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 880 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Appeal - Appeal against acquittal and discharge - Offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs - Drugs found in house frequented by other persons - Defence of no knowledge - Whether reasonable doubt cast on prosecution's case - Whether Judicial Commissioner ('JC') erred when re-evaluating on issue of possession - Whether JC considered and evaluated defence evidence sufficiently - Whether there was failure to establish prima facie case against accused person - Whether JC's judgment should be upheld - Whether accused person entitled to order of acquittal and discharge
PP v. Mohd Dzahir Ahmad
(Balia Yusof Wahi, Rohana Yusuf, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 880 [CA]

Appeal - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by prosecution - Accused person pleaded guilty to alternative charge under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Possession of drugs - High Court sentenced accused person to 80 months' imprisonment for alternative charge - Whether sentence adequate - Whether reflected public interest - Whether guilty plea automatically warranted lesser punishment - Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ss. 6, 12(2), 12(3) & 39A(2)
PP v. Ling Leh Hoe
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun, Abdul Rahman Sebli JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 869 [CA]

Sentencing - Plea of guilty - Accused person pleaded guilty to alternative charge under Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Possession of drugs - High Court sentenced accused person to 80 months imprisonment for alternative charge - Whether plea of guilt automatically entitled accused person to lesser punishment - Whether sentence adequate and reflected public interest
PP v. Ling Leh Hoe
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Idrus Harun, Abdul Rahman Sebli JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 869 [CA]

DAMAGES

Quantum - Multiplier - Road accident - Action for recovery of loss and damages for personal injury - Motorbus driven by first defendant collided into motorcycle ridden by plaintiff when first defendant tried to avoid potholes - Local authority brought in as third party to indemnify sums that might be awarded to plaintiff - Sessions Court apportioned 80% blame to defendants and 20% to third party - Decision affirmed by High Court - Appeal against quantum by all parties - Whether discount for contingencies reasonable
Wong Kuan Kay v. Rohaizad Othman & Anor; Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah (Third Party) & Another Appeal
(Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 902 [CA]

EVIDENCE

Burden of proof - Defamation - Proving actual or express malice - Whether onus in proving on person who asserts existence of actual or express malice - Whether plaintiffs must establish that defendants were actuated by dominant desire to injure plaintiffs
Dato' Abd Halim Ali & Anor v. Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Kamaludin Md Said J) [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [HC]

LEGAL PROFESSION

Disciplinary Committee - Findings - Disciplinary Committee constituted for inquiry of Advocate and Solicitor's misconduct - Findings and recommendation of Disciplinary Committee came two years and seven months after conclusion of inquiry - Advocate and Solicitor suspended for 12 months by Perak Bar Committee - Period of suspension reduced to six months by High Court upon appeal - Whether two year term of Disciplinary Committee had expired - Whether Chairman of Disciplinary Committee applied for extension of term - Whether complied with provisions and rules of Legal Profession Act 1976
Sundarajan Sokalingam v. Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas; Badan Peguam Malaysia (Intervener)
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohamad Ariff Yusof, Idrus Harun JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 892 [CA]

PARTNERSHIP

Existence Of Partnership - Dispute as to existence - Essential elements of partnership - Whether present and satisfied - Whether relationship of parties was one of partnership - Partnership Act 1961, s. 3
Tradimas Sdn Bhd v. Metrobrite Engineering Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Mairin Idang JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 995 [HC]

TORT

Abuse of process - Elements of action - Filing of winding up petition against solvent company - Whether tort of malicious prosecution established - Whether company only entitled to nominal damages for failure to prove losses and for refusal to pay judgment sum
Syarikat Steelcon Sdn Bhd v. Kee Cheng Teck
(Azimah Omar JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 968 [HC]

Damages - Nominal damages - Failure of company to prove losses - Whether only nominal damages to be awarded despite liability being established
Syarikat Steelcon Sdn Bhd v. Kee Cheng Teck
(Azimah Omar JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 968 [HC]

Defamation - Defences - Fair comment and qualified privilege - Defeating defence - Existence of malice - Whether malice defeats defence
Dato' Abd Halim Ali & Anor v. Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Kamaludin Md Said J) [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [HC]

Defamation - Libel - Newspaper article - Determination of natural and ordinary meaning of alleged defamatory words - Whether words complained of referred to plaintiffs - Whether impugned articles in their natural and ordinary sense carry defamatory imputations
Dato' Abd Halim Ali & Anor v. Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Kamaludin Md Said J) [2015] 4 CLJ 928 [HC]

Malicious prosecution - Elements of action - Filing of winding up petition against solvent company - Whether tort of malicious prosecution established - Whether company only entitled to nominal damages for failure to prove losses and for refusal to pay judgment sum
Syarikat Steelcon Sdn Bhd v. Kee Cheng Teck
(Azimah Omar JC) [2015] 4 CLJ 968 [HC]

Road accident - Liability - Action for recovery of loss and damages for personal injury - Motorbus driven by first defendant collided into motorcycle ridden by plaintiff when first defendant tried to avoid potholes - Local authority brought in as third party to indemnify sums that might be awarded to plaintiff - Sessions Court apportioned 80% blame to defendants and 20% to third party - Whether first defendant could have avoided accident had he kept proper lookout - Whether third party aware of potholes on road - Whether third party took necessary measures to maintain and repair potholes on road
Wong Kuan Kay v. Rohaizad Othman & Anor; Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah (Third Party) & Another Appeal
(Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JJCA) [2015] 4 CLJ 902 [CA]

ARTICLE

Legal Network Series Article(s)

1. UNDANG-UNDANG HAK CIPTA DAN PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN [Read excerpt]
    oleh: AHMAD SHAMSUL ABD AZIZ*, RUSNIAH AHMAD** [2015] 1 LNS(A) xlv

2. OATH AS MEANS OF PROOF IN ISLAMIC ADJUDICATION [Read excerpt]
    by: MUHAMMAD SHETTIMA* [2015] 1 LNS(A) xlvii

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Repealing
ACT 770 Special Measures Against Terrorism In Foreign Countries Act 2015 15 June 2015 [PU(B) 250/2015] -Nil-
ACT 769 Prevention Of Terrorism Act 2015 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 768 Technologists And Technicians Act 2015 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 767 Public Sector Home Financing Board Act 2015 Not Yet In Force -Nil-
ACT 766 Netting Of Financial Agreements Act 2015 30 March 2015 [PU(B) 131/2015] -Nil-

Amending Acts

Number Title Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1488 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 177
ACT A1487 Security Offences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Act 2015 15 June 2015 [PU(B) 251/2015] ACT 747
ACT A1486 Prison (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 537
ACT A1485 Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 15
ACT A1484 Prevention Of Crime (Amendment) Act 2015 Not Yet In Force ACT 297

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(A) 112/2015 Customs Duties (Goods Of Asean Countries Origin) (Asean Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature And Asean Trade In Goods Agreement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 8 June 2015 11 June 2015 PU(A) 277/2012
PU(A) 111/2015 Customs Duties (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 8 June 2015 11 June 2015 PU(A) 275/2012
PU(A) 110/2015 Customs Duties (Exemption) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015 8 June 2015 11 June 2015 PU(A) 371/2013
PU(A) 109/2015 Workmen'S Compensation (Foreign Workers' Compensation Scheme) (Insurance) (Amendment) Order 2015 8 June 2015 10 June 2015 PU(A) 45/2005
PU(A) 108/2015 Employees' Social Security (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 5 June 2015 15 June 2015 PU(A) 99/1971

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication Date coming into force Principal/Amending Act No
PU(B) 252/2015 Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation 15 June 2015 15 June 2015 ACT A1483
PU(B) 251/2015 Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation 15 June 2015 15 June 2015 ACT A1487
PU(B) 250/2015 Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation 15 June 2015 15 June 2015 ACT 770
PU(B) 249/2015 Designation And Revocation Of Designation Of Immigration Depot 12 June 2015 15 June 2015 ACT 155
PU(B) 248/2015 Appointment Of Date Of Coming Into Operation 11 June 2015 12 June 2015 ACT 757
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xl MALAYSIA

THE SYARIAH COURT: ITS POSITION UNDER THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM+

by

ROSLI DAHLAN*, FAWZA SABILA FAUDZI**


It has been said that Islamic law and the civil law exist as parallel systems in Malaysia. The proposition, while attractive, is grossly inaccurate in law. As it stands today, the administration of Islamic law is confined to personal law for Muslims and the Syariah court is subordinate to the courts established by the Federal Constitution and under federal law, as this article will show.

The Syariah court has in recent years become a prominent subject in public discussion, not least of all with the constitutional provision that "Islam is the religion of the Federation".[1]

It is vital that the history of how religion came to be inserted in the Federal Constitution be first examined, objectively and dispassionately, given that the subject is fraught with difficulty.

Federation of Malaya

The Federal Constitution has its roots in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 ("the FMA 1948") which established a federation known as the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu comprising the nine Malay states[2] and the Settlements[3] of Penang and Malacca.[4] It was envisaged that the Federation, while remaining under British rule for the time being, would progress towards eventual self-government.[5]


. . .

+This article is reproduced, with permission, from the Legal Herald (May 2015 issue), a publication by Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Advocates & Solicitors, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

* Rosli Dahlan (rd@lh-ag.com) heads the Corporate & Commercial Disputes Practice Group at Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill and regularly appears at the High Court and appellate courts on public law issues.

** Fawza Sabila Faudzi (fawza@lh-ag.com) graduated from the Ahmad Ibrahim Kuliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia, and is currently a pupil-in-chambers with the firm


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xlv MALAYSIA

UNDANG-UNDANG HAK CIPTA DAN PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTUAN

oleh

AHMAD SHAMSUL ABD AZIZ*, RUSNIAH AHMAD**


Pengenalan

Hak cipta adalah hak harta benda yang pada asalnya diberikan oleh undang-undang common dan ia merupakan harta tak ketara.[1] Sifat hak cipta sebagai harta benda adalah dengan merujuk kepada ianya sesuatu yang boleh dibeli, dijual, dipindahmilik, disewa serta diwasiat. Hak cipta merupakan sebahagian daripada harta intelek. Terdapat dua hak utama dalam hak cipta iaitu hak moral (droit d'auter) dan hak komersil atau hak eksklusif. Hak moral merupakan suatu yang berkaitan dengan hubungan pengkarya itu secara persendirian dengan karyanya dan ia bersifat kekal selama-lamanya. Manakala hak eksklusif pula diberikan kepada pemunya karya hak cipta bagi suatu tempoh yang ditetapkan oleh statut.[2] Sepanjang tempoh perlindungan ini, pemunya hak cipta berhak memonopoli terhadap karya tersebut.[3] Monopoli di sini bermakna monopoli pemilikan atau monopoli terhad. Pemunya hak cipta mempunyai hak untuk menghalang pihak lain menggunakan karya tersebut walaupun karya tersebut telah dimusnahkan. Selain itu, pemunya berhak mengawal hak milikan terhadap sesebuah karya dari segi pakej dan penjualan serta mengawal penggunaan yang dimiliki pengguna terhadap salinan karya aliran komersil.

Undang-undang hak cipta di Malaysia di tadbir di bawah Akta Hakcipta 1987. Akta ini mendapat perkenan diraja pada 30 April 1987 dan diwartakan pada 21 Mei 1987. Akta ini memansuhkan Akta Hak Cipta 1969. Sistem perundangan sebelumnya adalah berasaskan sistem undang-undang common. Ini dapat dilihat dengan pemakaian Akta United Kingdom 1911 yang digunakan di Pulau Pinang dan Melaka, Enakmen Hak Cipta Cap 73 yang terpakai di Selangor, Perak, Pahang dan Negeri Sembilan serta Akta Hak Cipta United Kingdom 1956 yang terpakai di Sabah dan Sarawak.[4] Akta Hakcipta 1987 mengalami beberapa pindaan dan pindaan terkini pada tahun 2012 dilakukan antaranya adalah bagi memenuhi kehendak cabaran perlindungan hak cipta di dunia siber.

Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula merupakan undang-undang tertinggi negara. Perlembagaan secara umumnya merupakan dasar yang memperincikan kuasa-kuasa awam dalam sebuah negara dibahagi-bahagi dan digunakan.[5] Perlembagaan harus melihat kepada prinsip-prinsip yang membentuk institusi negara seperti eksekutif, badan perundangan dan kehakiman lantas menyatakan kuasa dan peranan setiap daripadanya dalam kerangka tersebut. Perlembagaan Persekutuan merupakan undang-undang tertinggi di Malaysia. Konsep ketertinggian perlembagaan atau grundnorma diperkenalkan oleh Hans Kelsern (1881-1973).


. . .

* Pensyarah Kanan, Pusat Pengajian Undang-undang, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

** Profesor Madya, Dr, Pusat Pengajian Undang-undang, Universiti Utara Malaysia.


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xlvii NIGERIA

OATH AS MEANS OF PROOF IN ISLAMIC ADJUDICATION

by

MUHAMMAD SHETTIMA*


ABSTRACT

Unlike the English Law, Islamic Law recognises an Oath as a standalone means of proof through which certain claims can be established. In addition to oaths taken by witnesses, it serves to strengthen a claim in the absence of conclusive evidence or satisfaction of required quantum. An oath is also very important in the procedure of determining claims before a Shar?'ah Court. Where a plaintiff has no conclusive evidence, a defendant may be asked to swear an oath stating that there is no claim against him. If he declines, the plaintiff will be required to swear the oath as proof of his claim. A plaintiff can also be required to swear an oath if he makes a claim against an absent or dead defendant and produces witnesses. The reason is that the dead person may have settled his obligations. Although there is no requirement for witnesses to take an oath before testifying, jurists have agreed that because we are living in corrupt times, it is appropriate for the judge to ask them to swear an oath.

1. Introduction

Ithbãt literally means proof. It is the means through which a plaintiff attains his rights or protects his interest. If the plaintiff is able to prove that the defendant is impeding him from enjoying his rights or is violating his rights, the judge shall issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from such interference or direct him to surrender to the plaintiff his rights. Muslim jurists have agreed that admission (iqrãr), testimony, oath and declining to take it as well as qasãmah are Shari'ah evidence upon which a judge should rely in his judgements.[1] Other means of proof upon which the jurists have argued including circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence shall also be discussed later. This paper attempts to shed a spotlight on an oath as a means of proof due to its importance and lack of comprehensive materials detailing all its aspects.

Oath (al-yamin) literally denotes strength and ability and came to denote the right hand. Swearing by Allah is also referred to as al-yamin as it strengthens a litigant's claim.[2] Oath for proof of right (haq) in a Court is defined as confirmation of existence of a right or lack of it before a Judge by invoking the Name of Allah or His Attribute.[3]


. . .

* Lecturer, Mohammed Goni College of Legal and Islamic Studies, Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria.


Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
x