Taro Imanaka (the plaintiff who is now the respondent in this action) filed an action against Ying Cheng Ang (the defendant who is now the appellant in this action) in the Sessions Court, Johor Bahru on 13 April 1994 (pp 3-20 of the record of appeal). It is an action relating to alleged libel committed by the appellant towards the respondent.

The appellant by way of an amended originating application applied for the following:

(1) that Summons No 53-179-94-2 and the statement of claim filed by the

respondent against the appellant are invalid and be struck out;

(2) that costs of the application be taxed and/or unless agreed, be paid

by the respondent to the appellant.

The grounds are set out in the affidavit of the appellant himself (p 31 of the record). They are:

(1) The alleged libel as stated in para 3 of the statement of claim

of the plaintiff was committed outside Malaysia as it was

addressed to one T Nagai, a citizen of Japan who resided in Japan

at the material time;

(2) At the material time the appellant was residing in Singapore and

if there was libel, the alleged libel was committed in Japan

and/or Singapore;

(3) There was no publication of the alleged libel in Malaysia;

(4) The respondents claim is outside the jurisdiction of the court

here;

(5) The action filed is invalid in law on the ground that the matter

is outside the jurisdiction of the court here.

The respondent opposed the application on two grounds, namely:

(1) The publication of the alleged libel in para 3 of the statement

of claim was written and sent by the appellant from Johor Bahru

and therefore the court here has the jurisdiction to hear the

summons;

(2) If on the facts, the court were to rule that it has no

jurisdiction, then the appellant had submitted to the

jurisdiction of the court here by taking the following steps:

(i) The appellant had entered an unconditional appearance (exh

TIl).

(ii) The appellant by way of his application on 16 July 1994

obtained an order from the court here for the respondent to

provide security for costs in the sum of RM20,000 (exh TI2).

The respondent thereby contended that the court here has the jurisdiction to hear his summons filed therein.

The learned sessions court judge on 27 April 1995 dismissed the appellants original application with costs in the cause. She ordered that the summons and the statement of claim of the respondent be amended and the consequential order that the appellant file his statement of defence on the service of the summons and the amended statement of claim by the respondent (see pp 50-51 of the record).

The appellant appealed against the said order of the learned sessions court judge (pp 1-2 of the record).

When the appeal came before me on 20 September 1996, and after hearing both counsel, I allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the said order of the learned sessions court judge.

The respondent appealed against my order.

Preliminary

As the matter was filed in the sessions court, it appears therefore that the claim of the respondent would not exceed RM250,000. The civil jurisdiction of the sessions court is provided by s 65(1) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which reads:

Subject to the limitations contained in this Act, a sessions court

shall have:

(a) unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a civil

nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant

and distress; and

(b) jurisdiction to try all other actions and suits of a civil nature

where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter

does not exceed RM250,000.

Going by the nature of the respondents claim, s 65