SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1634

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SAYYID SHAH ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(A)-691-12/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Lee Teong Hoot ,Respondent Advocate: Nur Irmawatie Daud,Na'ilah Ilhani Shamsulbahri

Regulation 14 of the National Registration Regulations 1990 prohibits reverting to a former name after a name change, emphasizing finality in name changes.

Headnote:(A) National Registration Act 1959 - National Registration Regulations 1990 - Judicial Review - The Appellant sought to revert his name from Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah to K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy, which was rejected by the 1st Respondent. The Appellant argued that the rejection was irrational and ultra vires, while the Respondents maintained the decision was valid under reg 14(2A), which prohibits reverting to a former name after a name change. (Paras 30-34, 56-62)

(B) Administrative Law - The court found no duty to provide reasons for the rejection as the decision was straightforward and did not warrant further explanation. (Paras 69-80)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, after converting to Islam, changed his name but later sought to revert to his original name due to complications arising from dual identities affecting legal transactions.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the regulations do not permit reverting to a former name once a name change is executed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellant could revert to his original name and if there was a duty to provide reasons for the rejection of his application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the regulations only allow a change of name to a new name, not back to the original name, and that the absence of a duty to give reasons was justified.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. background facts of the appellant's name change (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. appellant's arguments for name change validity (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. respondents' defense against appellant's claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. court's analysis on name change regulations (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)
5. court's ruling on duty to provide reasons (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
6. final decision and order of the court (Para 81 , 82)
Collin Lawrence Sequerah JCA:

(A) Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, which had on 20 October 2023 dismissed the Appellant's application for Judicial Review with costs for the following reliefs:

a) an order for Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 21 January 2021 in rejecting the Appellant's application to amend the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, ID No: 75042371-5087 (A33757824) to original name of the Appellant which is K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy, ID No: 750423-715087 (A33757824);

b) an order for Mandamus to compel the 1st Respondent to amend and register the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, ID No: 750423-71-5087 (A33757824)to the original name of the Appellant which is K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (ID card No:750423-71-5087 (A33757824);

c) a Declaratory order that the decision of the 1st Respondent dated 21 January 2021 in dismissing the Appellant's application was invalid and void;

d) damages; and

e) any other reliefs that the Court deems fit and proper.

(B) Pertinent Background Facts

[2] The Appellant is a citizen of Malaysia who was born on 23 April 1975 in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

[3] The Appellant's birth certificate was issued by the Office of the Assistant High Commissioner Malaysia in Madras under the name of K.Praghadheeswara Raja. His father's name was Kalandasamy.

[4] The Appellant was a Hindu from birth and professed the said religion at all material times.

[5] The 1st Respondent issued a Malaysian Registration Identity Card under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (My Kad No: 750423-71-5087 (A33757824)).

[6] In 2005, the Appellant converted to Islam at Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan, and he changed his name to Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah.

[7] On 4 October 2005, an application by the Appellant to change his name was allowed by the 1st Respondent under reg 14 of the National Registration Regulations 1990 . Consequent to that, a new identity card was issued under the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, replacing the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy.

[8] The Appellant successfully applied for and was given a new passport on 29 April 2015 under his new name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah, and he flew to India using this new passport on 23 December 2016.

[9] However, the Indian Immigration refused to allow the Appellant entry into India due to the fact that he had previously entered India using a Malaysian passport under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy. As a result, the Appellant was deported to Malaysia.

[10] Upon his return to Malaysia, the Appellant claimed that on 22 March 2016, upon his application for a passport under his original name, the Director General of Malaysian Immigration revoked the passport under the name of Sayyid Shah bin Abdullah and replaced it with a new passport issued under the name of K. Praghadheeswara Raja a/l Kalandasamy (No A35711811) for a duration of 5 years.

[11] The Appellant encountered difficulties with passport No A35711811 wherein the Director General of Malaysian Immigration denied issuing the said passport and stated that all Malaysian passports were issued according to the name that appears on the identity card.

[12] The Appellant then claimed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top