Harun Hashim SCJ:

The only issue in this appeal is whether the Sessions Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear scholarship agreement cases. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The first respondent was awarded a scholarship in 1975 by Bank Negara to read law at a university and subsequently to read-in-chambers at a firm of solicitors. In consideration of the scholarship grants, the first respondent was required to serve Bank Negara for a total period of 12 years failing which he was to pay Bank Negara RM90,000. He left the service of Bank Negara after 4½ years. Bank Negara demanded payment of the RM90,000 but the first respondent failed to do so, whereupon Bank Negara took out a writ in the High Court on 18 November 1986, claiming the sum of RM90,000 as liquidated damages, interests and costs. The other four respondents are sureties of the first respondent.

On 19 October 1990, the respondents took out a summons-in-chambers that Bank Negara's (the appellant) writ be struck out on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. It was argued that s. 7 of the Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976 (the Act) conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Sessions Court with respect to scholarship agreements and at the same time ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Judge agreed and struck out the writ with liberty to file a fresh claim.

The preamble to the Act reads:

An Act to amend the Contracts Act 1950, to make provisions with respect to scholarship agreements.

Section 7 of the Act provides:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any written law to the contrary, the Sessions Court and, in the case of Sabah and Sarawak, the Court of a Magistrate of the first class shall have jurisdiction in all civil proceedings which arise from or relate to a scholarship agreement.

The Act came into force on 27 February 1976. On that date the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court did not exceed RM25,000 and was only increased to RM100,000 with effect from 22 May 1987: Section 65 Subordinate Courts Act 1948. It was for this reason, it is said, that the appellant filed the claim in the High Court. It is clear, however, from s. 7 of the Act that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to hear scholarship agreement cases not only of amounts exceeding RM25,000 but also of amounts exceeding RM100,000 as well, as far back as 1976.

But is the jurisdiction exclusive to the Sessions Court? The plain wording of s. 7 does not say so. It merely says "the Sessions Court ... shall have jurisdiction ..." It would be different if the word "only" is added before the words "the Sessions Court" or by some other expressions like "to the exclusion of any other Court." The words, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any written law to the contrary" in this context, can only refer to s. 65 of the Subordinate Courts Act which limits the civil jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to claims not exceeding RM25,000 before 1976 and RM100,000 thereafter. Section 7 is therefore only permissive and not imperative in enhancing the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

Section 23(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, provides inter alia:

Subject to the limitations contained in Article 128 of the Constitution the High Court shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where:

The word "all" means any civil proceeding irrespective of the amount of the claim. To put it in another way, the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction to try all civil claims, including claims that may be made in the Sessions Court and the Magistrate's Court: Ponniah v. Chinniah [1959]

The general rule undoubtedly is that the jurisdiction of superior Courts is not taken away except by express words or necessary implication per Tindal CJ in Albon v. Pyke [1842] 4M & G 421.

The chief distinctions between superior and inferior Courts are found in connection with jurisdiction. Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superi