NORAZMA ABDUL RAHIM & SATU LAGI LWN. AZLAN AHMI (KAND 1)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2018 MarsdenLR 1043

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM
NORAZMA ABDUL RAHIM & SATU LAGI LWN. AZLAN AHMI (KAND 1)
[Rayuan No: BA-12ANCvC-182-12-2017]

Important Points

The trial court erred by considering extraneous evidence in dismissing the plaintiffs' action, contrary to established procedural rules.

Subject

Civil Law - Appeal

Act Referred

Rules of Court: Order 18 Rule 19

Headnote

Statute Analysis: The appeal involves the application of Rule 18, Order 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 concerning procedural dismissals. Facts: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Sessions Court that dismissed their action against the defendant on procedural grounds. Findings: The lower court erred in considering evidence outside the scope permitted under Rule 18, Order 19(2) and disregarded the necessity for fair access to justice.

Issues: The court framed the appeal around procedural propriety and the existence of reasonable cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reasoned that the trial court's reliance on extraneous evidence constituted a legal misstep, requiring reversal in light of the established right of access to justice.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the Sessions Court's order was set aside; the action was to be reinstated for trial.

Petitioner Advocates:Azwan Abdul Wahab ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd Effendy Rosley

Table of Content
1. filings against the defendant and the request for cancellation of actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

[1] Dalam kes ini, perayu-perayu (Plaintif-plaintif) telah memfailkan suatu tindakan (Tindakan Ini) di Mahkamah Sesyen (MS) terhadap responden (Defendan). Saya akan merujuk pihak-pihak dalam penghakiman ini sebagaimana mereka dirujuk di MS.

[2] Defendan telah memfailkan suatu permohonan (no kandungan 31) untuk membatalkan Tindakan Ini (Permohonan Defendan) di bawah:-

(1) Aturan 18 k 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KM); dan

(2) bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah (Court's inherent jurisdiction).

[3] Puan Hakim MS yang bijaksana telah membenarkan Permohonan Defendan dan membatalkan Tindakan Ini dengan kos (Perintah MS). Justeru itu, Plaintif-plaintif merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi terhadap Perintah MS (Rayuan Ini).