The court ruled that disputes within a registered society should first be submitted to the Registrar of Societies for resolution before litigation is pursued.

JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant in this case applied to strike out the Plaintiff's claim by virtue of O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules").

Brief Facts

[2] All the parties to this case are members of an Association called the Pertubuhan Kuil Sri Thirumurugan, Taman Danau Kota Setapak, Kuala Lumpur ("the Association"), an Association which is registered under the Societies Act 1966 .

[3] The dispute in this case relates to a tussle between the old committee members of the Association and the new committee members purported to have been appointed by the convening of an Extraordinary General meeting.

[4] The crux of the dispute as is pleaded revolves around the validity of the old committee against the validity of the new committee.

The Issue

[5] After considering the Defendants' application and considering the submissions of both parties the Court determined that the only issue to be decided under this application is whether the present dispute should be first brought before the Registrar of Societies ("Registrar") to be resolved, by virtue of the Societies Act 1966 ("the Act"). In this case the dispute was never brought before the Registrar.

Disputes In Relation To Association

[6] It is best to determine the issue by looking at the powers of the Registrar which is provided under s 3A of the Act and is as follows:

In addition to the powers, duties and functions conferred on the Registrar by this Act and any regulations made under this Act, the Registrar shall have and may exercise all such powers, discharge all such duties and perform all such functions as may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to and carrying out the provisions of this Act.

[7] The next provision which is relevant is s 16 of the Act which is worded as follows:

(1) If the Registrar is of the opinion that a dispute has occurred among the members or office-bearers of a registered society as a result of which the Registrar is not satisfied of the identity of the persons who have been properly constituted as office-bearers of the society, the Registrar may serve notice on the society requiring the society, within one month of the service of such notice, to produce to him evidence of the settlement of any such dispute and of the proper appointment of the lawful office-bearers of the society or of the institution of proceedings for the settlement of such dispute.

(2) If any such notice as is provided in subsection (1) is not complied with to the satisfaction of the Registrar within the period of one month or any extension of the period allowed by the Registrar, the Registrar may take steps to cancel the registration of the society under s 13.

[8] A sum total of both the above provisions shows that the Registrar has not only the powers to resolve dispute of an Association but also determine the validity of the appointment of the lawful office bearers. In short the Registrar has the powers to conduct a detailed and thorough internal inquiry.

[9] The law does not preclude the dispute from being referred to the Court. However the Court are not well equipped to conduct a proper inquiry of such nature to determine as in this case the validity of the old committee against the new committee. The most the Court can do is to decide matter raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot go beyond the pleadings.

[10] From the facts pleaded in this case it is apparent that the disputes between the parties has been simmering for some time and involve underlying matters which might not have been pleaded. A thorough inquiry on the underlying issues can be best determined by the Registrar conducting a proper inquiry.

[11] In the event the Registrar fails to take any action to determine the issues the matter can be brought before the Court for judicial review to direct the Registrar to hold an inquiry.

[12] In the event the Registrar does hold and inquiry and decides on the disputed issues and only then a party aggrieved by the decision brings the matter to the Cou