JUDGMENT

Haidar Mohd Noor FCJ (majority):

[1] The matter before us is in respect of a reference of constitutional questions by the High Court pursuant to s 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 91) ("CJA").

[2] It was agreed by the parties as per order dated 30 July 2001 that the following questions be referred to the Federal Court for determination under s 84 of the CJA:

1. Whether the plaintiff, the Regent of the State of Selangor, who is appointed to exercise the functions as "Sultan" is a "Ruler" for the purposes of arts 181, 182 and 183 of the Federal Constitution (as amended by AM Act A848) having regard to the aforesaid provisions and the interpretation of "Ruler" as defined in art 160 of the Federal Constitution?

2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, does the Special Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the plaintiff's claim to the exclusion of the High Court of Malaya?

3. If the answer to (1) or (2) above is in the affirmative does the Special Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on the defendant's counterclaim to exclusion of the High Court of Malaya (subject to the Attorney General's consent pursuant to art 183 Federal Constitution)?

4. If the answer to (2) or (3) above is in the negative do the ordinary courts which are constituted under Part IX of the Federal Constitution have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim?

[3] There are other terms also embodied in the order dated 30 July 2001, inter alia, on costs. It was also ordered that all proceedings be stayed pending the decision of the Federal Court.

[4] In order to assist the Federal Court in deciding the questions and as is provided by s 84(2) of the CJA, the following statement of agreed facts was filed therein by the parties:

1. On 6 May 1998, the plaintiff filed a writ summons and statement of claim against both defendants. The defendants' filed a defence and counterclaim on 3 July 1998 which was subsequently amended by Court Order dated 7 January 1999. A reply and defence to counterclaim was filed on 17 July 1998.

2. On 24 April 1999, the plaintiff was appointed Regent of Selangor to exercise the functions as "Sultan" when His Highness's father, DYMM Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Hisamuddin Alam Shah was appointed to the throne as the 11th Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

3. On 27 July 1999, the plaintiff's solicitors, Messrs Lim Kian Leong & Co, wrote to the attorney general's chambers to seek advice in respect of the further conduct of this matter A response was received vide the letter dated 7 September 1999 from the attorney general's chambers stating that in light of His Highness's appointment as "Regent", further action is to be commenced in the Special Court and the consent of the attorney general will be required for the same. On 30 September 1999, the defendant's solicitors, Messrs Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah wrote to the attorney general's chambers for consent that the defendants continue their counter claim in the Special Court.

4. On 13 October 2000, both parties were granted audience with YB Tan Sri Datuk Sri Peguam Negara and issues of jurisdiction, among others, were discussed.

5. On 4 November 2000, the defendants' through their solicitors wrote to the attorney general's chambers expressing their reasons why the matter should continue in the High Court and not the Special Court and asking for confirmation that this matter be continued in the High Court and not the Special Court.

6. On 15 November 2000, a letter was issued by the attorney general's chambers indicating that this issue be determined by the High Court of Malaya.

7. The defendants subsequently disagreed that the matter should proceed in the Special Court. The plaintiff filed two applications, one to withdraw the claim in the High Court with liberty to file afresh in the Special Court ("application to withdraw") and the other to strike out the defendants' counter claim. On 2 April 2001, the applica