Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS BANDARAYA PETALING JAYA – Appellant
Versus
BONIFAC LOBO ROBERT V LOBO – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for declaration of complaint's validity. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. res judicata and jurisdiction issues. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. public prosecutor's authority and consent. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. charge against plaintiff under sdba. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. prematurity of the respondent's action. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. high court's supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. error in jurisdiction and findings. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. conclusion and decision on appeal. (Para 43 , 44) |
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff/Respondent brought an Originating Summons at the High Court wherein he made an application under s 35 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 ("CJA") under the general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court for a declaration:
(a) that the complaint made by the Defendant dated 17 July 2019 is without basis and invalid at law;
(b) that all consequential proceedings are null and void at law, particularly art 145(3) of the Fe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
