JUDGMENT

(Oral)

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:-

This is the judgment of the court.

The respondent before us is a Malaysian citizen. In 1993 he graduated from the National University of Singapore. He obtained an LLB Honours. He stayed on in Singapore. He read in Chambers there. After completing his pupillage he was called to the Singapore Bar. He practised in Singapore for approximately nineteen months. Thereafter he returned home to Malaysia. He wanted to have himself called, admitted and enrolled as an advocate and solicitor of these courts. He sought and found a pupil master, Mr George Pathmanathan. Mr Pathmanathan is an advocate and solicitor admitted and enrolled under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("the Act"). Mr Pathmanathan had, we have been advised from the Bar by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, a current practising certificate at all times material to this appeal. In other words he could appear and plead any case at any level before any of the Courts of Semenanjung Malaysia. Now, Mr Pathmanathan also has a practice on the island of Labuan. It is in his Chambers there that the respondent attended as a pupil. In due course the respondent presented his petition for admission before the High court of Malaya. The appellant granted him 1 1/2 months shortening of his period of pupillage by taking into account his experience in Singapore. But when the respondent's petition for admission came on for hearing the appellant objected. The learned judge who heard the petition overruled the objection. He admitted and enrolled the respondent. He gave a number of reasons and made a number of observations in the course of his judgment. Principally, he held that the respondent's pupillage came within the terms of s 13(1) of the Act. That section reads as follows:-

Subject to subsection (4) a pupil shall serve his period of pupillage with an advocate and solicitor who is and has been in active practice in Malaysia for a total period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of commencement of his pupillage...

The critical words in the foregoing provision for the purposes of the present appeal are "an advocate and solicitor who is and has been in active practice in Malaysia". Learned counsel for the appellant, Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, has addressed a very carefully formulated argument in which he contends that Mr George Pathmanathan does not fall within the above-quoted words of s. 13(1). He has with his customary ability drawn our attention to several sections in the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1984. For reasons which will become apparent in a moment we find it unnecessary to reproduce or comment upon any of the above provisions. But we must address some of the background which has been very usefully set out for us by counsel for the appellant.

Historically, the island of Labuan has always formed part of what is now known as the State of Sabah (formerly known as British North Borneo and later as North Borneo). In 1984 Sabah excised Labuan from its geographic boundaries identified by the measurements appearing in the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1984. Labuan thereafter became a Federal Territory. But it remained and remains as part of Malaysia. So, as far as political delineation in accordance with constitutional provisions is concerned Malaysia is now made up of the several states in Semenanjung Malaysia, the States of Sabah and Sarawak in East Malaysia as well as the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and most recently, Putrajaya.

Applying the ordinary canons of construction to s. 13(1) and taking into account the background we have just set out the answer to the question: Was Mr George Pathmanathan an advocate and solicitor who is and has been in active practice in Malaysia? must be in the affirmative. At the risk of repetition, he was at the material time an advocate and solicitor. Equally, he had an active practice in Malaysia, namely in the Federal Territory of Labuan.

The fa