Back
2010 MarsdenLR 3078
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KALIAMMAL SINNASAMY – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN (JAWI) & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01-5-2006]
The jurisdiction over matters of religious status and conversion lies solely with the Syariah Court, as established by Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution of Malaysia - Article 121(1A) - Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The court ruled whether the deceased, a Hindu, converted to Islam posthumously and the authority of civil versus Syariah Court. The High Court found it lacked jurisdiction over religious status, deferring to Syariah Court's authority. (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Civil Court confirmed it's not qualified to determine religious conversions and affirmed Syariah Court's sole jurisdiction in such matters (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, wife of the deceased, sought declarations regarding the deceased's religious status and an injunction against claims by other parties. The deceased was claimed to have converted to Islam posthumously.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the High Court's ruling that jurisdiction over religion lay with the Syariah Court.
Issues: The core issue was whether the Civil Court could adjudicate matters concerning the deceased's conversion to Islam based on the Syariah Court’s prior order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that it should defer to the Syariah Court for religious status determinations, as mandated by law, and the civil courts have no jurisdiction in Islamic matters.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for declaration of marital status (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's arguments for high court review (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. high court's jurisdiction over syariah matters (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. syariah high court's authority to determine muslim status (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. civil court limitations in matters of islamic law (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. complications in interfaith scenarios upon death (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. dual judicial system in malaysia (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
[1] We adjourned this appeal for decision today so that time is given us to fully appreciate the issues raised by all parties. Thus we now give our grounds.
[2] The appellant herein, Kaliammal a/p Sinnasamy (the appellant) is the wife of Moorthy a/l Maniam deceased ("the deceased") who died on 20 December 2005. On the very next day ie, on 21 December 2005, the appellant, applied by originating summons in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, for the following orders:
(a) A declaration that the applicant is the valid wife to Moorthy a/l Maniam ("the deceased");
(b) A declaration that the deceased is a Hindu and follows the custom and Hindu religion before his death;
(c) A declaration that the deceased is not a Muslim on the date of his death;
(d) A declaration that all documents of conversion of the deceased to the Islamic religion is not valid and void;
(e) An order directing the 2nd respondent and/or the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital by itself and/or by their agent and/or by their workers and/or by their representative to release the deceased's body immediately to the applicant for burial purposes;
(f) An injunction order forbidding the 1st respondent from taking and claiming the deceased's body in any way whatsoever from the 2nd respondent;
(g) An interim injunction order forbidding the 1st respondent from taking and/or claiming the deceased's body from the 2nd respondent and/or to restrain the 1st respondent from claiming the deceased's body in any way whatsoever from the 2nd respondent until the final decision of the Court.
[3] The appellant's application above was heard on 22 December 2005 by the learned High Court judge.
[4] At that hearing before the learned judge in the High Court, the 1st respondent produced an ex parte order that it had sought and obtained from the Syariah High Court in Kuala Lumpur the previous day. The said Order reads:
That 1. Mohammad b. Abdullah @ Moorthy a/l Maniam (the deceased) No. KP T1074385 is a Muslim;
2. Mohammad b. Abdullah @ Moorthy a/l Maniam No. KP T1074385 is to be buried in accordance with Islamic law;
3. Persons or authorities having custody of the body of (the deceased) Mohammad b. Abdullah @ Moorthy a/l Maniam No. KP T1074385 deceased, are required to hand over the body of the deceased to the 1st respondent.
[5] The High Court in Kuala Lumpur granted the appellant's first prayer that she is the lawful wife of the deceased. However the learned judge dismissed the other prayers in the appellant's application, on the grounds that the High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as it concerned the religion of Islam which are matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.
[6] Before us, counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Manoharan's submission can be summarised mainly as follows, that:
(i) the appellant asks for the matter to be sent back to the High Court to be heard on the merits;
(ii) the High Court did not hear the matter on the merits;
(iii) the High Court judge had dismissed the matter on grounds that he has no jurisdiction to deal with it;
(iv) the learned judge had erred because he had relied on the order of the Syariah Court declaring the deceased to be a Muslim;
(v) that the 1st respondent had acted mala fide in seeking the said order ex parte ;
The appellant took the position that the Syariah Court was not seised with jurisdiction to determine the religious status of the deceased;
(vi) the 1st respondent had no locus standi to claim the deceased's body;
(vii) the appellant wanted the High Cou
