Strict compliance with mandatory provisions of election laws is essential; failure renders election petitions liable to be struck out.

Jurisdiction Of An Election Court

[1] The law governing an election Court and an election judge in hearing election petitions is a special jurisdiction unknown to common law and equity.

(i) Tengku Korish v. Mohamed Jusoh & Anor and Abdul Raouf v. Ibrahim Arshad & Anor and Mokhtar Abdullah v. Mokhtar Haji Daud & Anor, [1970] 1 MLJ 6 at pp 6 and 7 .

[2] This special power/jurisdiction of an election Court was further acknowledged in:

(i) Hugh Siak Meng & Anor v. Daing Ibrahim [1975] 4 MLJ 275 at pp 276 and 278.

[3] This jurisdiction regarding election is a creature of statute, and as such should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it. In addition, as the jurisdiction is a civil right but a creature of statute so it must also be subjected to the limitations imposed by it.

(i) Mahari Endut v. Dato' Hj Mat Razali Kassim, Pegawai Pengurus Pilihan Raya Bagi Kawasan Dewan Undangan Negeri N15 Ladang & Ors, [2009] 5 MLJ 153 at pp 162 and 163; [2009] 4 CLJ 488; and

(ii) Dr Lee Chong Meng v. Returning Officer (Abdul Rahman Abdullah) & Ors (No 2), [2000] 3 MLJ 218 at p 230 ; [2000] 3 CLJ 532; [2000] 3 AMR 3419.

Provisions Of Election Laws Are Mandatory

[4] Many authorities have quoted the need for strict/mandatory adherence to the election laws.

[5] This proposition was propounded in the Privy Council judgment in Devan Nair v. Yong Kuan Teik, [1967] 1 MLJ 261 (Tab 5 BOA). Rationale for such strict implementation of the election laws is because it would be in the public interest for a speedy determination of the matter.

[6] The principle laid down in the case of Devan Nair was subsequently followed in several notable local cases such as:

(i) Hugh Siak Meng & Anor v. Daing Ibrahim [1975] 4 MLJ 275 at pp 276 and 278; and

(ii) Dr Lee Chong Meng v. Returning Officer (Abdul Rahman Abdullah) & Ors (No 2), [2000] 3 MLJ 218 at p 230 ; [2000] 3 CLJ 532; [2000] 3 AMR 3419.

[7] Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of election laws will render the petition defective and liable to be struck out by the Court.

(i) Mahari Endut v. Dato' Hj Mat Razali Kassim, Pegawai Pengurus Pilihan Raya Bagi Kawasan Dewan Undangan Negeri N15 Ladang & Ors, [2009] 5 MLJ 153 at pp 162 and 163; [2009] 4 CLJ 488.

Powers Of The Court To Deal With Preliminary Objections

[8] As the provisions of election laws are mandatory, the election judge has the power to consider preliminary objections premised on failure of the petitioner to observe the said provisions.

[9] An election judge has an inherent power to clean his list of defective petitions due to their non-compliance to the provisions of the election laws.

(i) Devan Nair v. Yong Kuan Teik, [1967] 1 MLJ 261 (Tab 5 BOA); and

(ii) Gan Joon Zin v. Fong Kui Lun & Ors, [2004] 4 CLJ 729 at p 743; [2004] 5 AMR 750 (Tab 6 BOA).

Ground For Avoiding The Election

[10] The petitioner grounded his petition on four charges ie, two charges on s 32(b) and two charges on s 32(c) of the Election Offences Act 1954 .

[11] There are two limbs under s 32(b) which are to be read conjunctively ie, firstly, non-compliance of any written law and secondly, such non-compliance affected the result of the election.

The need to fulfil both ("twin requirements") limbs was enumerated in the case of Gan Jo