Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ:

[1] We heard this application on 28 January 2008 and dismissed it. These are my grounds

[2] The respondents who were the plaintiffs in the Sessions Court filed an action at the Sessions Court, Georgetown, Penang claiming for general and special damages, interest and costs The claim was a dependency claim arising from an accident in which the deceased, a pillion rider on a motorcycle had died. The Sessions Court decided in favour of the respondents as follows:

[3] The respondents, being dissatisfied with the multiplier and the multiplicand awarded, appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Sessions Court.

[4] The respondents further appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It did not allow the increase in the multiplicand but allowed the appeal in respect of the multiplier by increasing the multiplier to 16 years

[5] The applicant (who was the defendant in the Sessions Court) now applies to this Court for leave to appeal on the following issues:

(a) Whether the Court of Appeal is the apex Court in respect of cases arising from motor vehicle accidents and has co-ordinate jurisdiction as the Federal Court;

(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion in Ibrahim Ismail & Anor v. Hasnah Puteh Imat & Anor & Another Appeal, [2004] 1 MLJ 525 that Chan Chin Min & Anor v. Lim Yoke Eng; [1994] 3 MLJ 233; [1994] 3 CLJ 687; [1994] 3 AMR 1991 was wrongly decided by the majority in the then Supreme Court and refusing to follow the case in defiance of the doctrine of the stare decisis;

(c) Whether this Honourable Court affirms and upholds that the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable to all the courts in Malaysia and has to be strictly followed;

(d) Whether the Court of Appeal must accept loyally the decisions of the Federal Court;

(e) Whether the decision in Chan Chin Min & Anor v. Lim Yoke Eng was given per incuriam;

(f) For purposes of calculation of dependency claims, is there a difference between 'loss of support' and 'loss of earnings';

(g) In interpreting s 7(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 do the concepts 'loss of support' and 'loss of earnings' bear the same meaning and are merged for purposes of the calculation of dependency claims especially in view of the words 'in assessing the loss of earnings in respect of any period after the death of a person where such earnings provide for or contribute to the damages under this section...' in s 7(3)(iv) of the Civil Law Act;

(h) Whether the words 'take into account' in s 7(3)(iv)-(a)-(d) of the Civil Law Act 1956 and in particular (d) make it mandatory for the Court to be bound by the fixed multiplier prescribed therein or alternatively whether the Court has a discretion to depart from the fixed multiplier on a case to case basis depending on the circumstances and the evidence adduced at the trial;

(i) If Ibrahim Ismail's case is rightly decided, it will follow that for dependency cases arising from motor vehicle accidents, the fixed multiplier as prescribed under s 7(3(iv)(d) must be strictly followed in all situations For dependency cases arising from accidents other than motor vehicle accidents (if it originates from the High Court), Chan Chin Min's case will apply ie, the statutory multiplier need not be strictly followed in cases involving a deceased person who is not married and the dependants are his/her parents Whether this Honorable Court will affirm that there be two different sets of multiplier applicable to dependants in respect of motor vehicle accidents and non motor vehicle accidents?

[6] As stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, the application is made under rr 137 of the Rules of the Federal 1995 (RFC 1995). What it means is that learned counsel for the defendant