Back
2012 MarsdenLR 1491
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
HOSLAN HUSSIN – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN – Respondent
[Civil Application No: 08(i)-516-11/2011(W)]
Contempt of court requires that actions of a contemnor must disrupt justice and judges retain the authority to impose summary punishment when necessary, balancing this power with the need for a fair process.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Nature and Scope - The court possesses inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt in face of court under Article 126 of the Federal Constitution and Section 13 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Such contempt occurs when acts disrupt administration of justice. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Summoning and Procedure - A contemnor must be given an opportunity to be heard in contempt proceedings and the elements of contempt must be clearly defined. The court may choose to proceed summarily or adjourn proceedings upon recognizing contempt. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a former Imam, committed contempt by throwing shoes at the bench after an unfavorable ruling regarding his land possession case. The applicant had not challenged his termination or the grounds for contempt prior to this incident. (Paras 1, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found the applicant guilty of contempt in the face of the court, stating that his actions constituted a serious affront to the judicial process. (Paras 9, 14, 15)
Issues: The essential questions addressed by the court included the criteria constituting contempt in face of the court and the appropriateness of the proceedings against the applicant. (Paras 2, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court elucidated that contempt must directly affect the course of justice and can result from any act of disobedience or disrespectful behavior. Summary punishment should be exercised with caution but may occur when the offense is clear-cut. (Paras 2, 4, 15)
Result: The applicant was sentenced to one year imprisonment for contempt. (Paras 14, 18)
[1] This is a contempt proceeding instituted by this court on its own motion against the applicant, Hoslan bin Hussin. It is necessary at the outset to set out the background facts of relevance prior to the institution of this contempt proceeding against the applicant and they are as follows:
(1) In Originating Summons No S-21NCVC-129-2011 ["the OS application"] filed before the High court at Kuala Lumpur, the respondent Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan ["MAIWP"] as the plaintiff obtained an order for possession of land under O 89 of the Rules of the High court 1980 on 23 June 2011 against the applicant as the defendant. The applicant was required to vacate the housing quarters on the said land provided by MAIWP for him to stay while holding the post of an Imam and a notice to deliver vacant possession dated 29 September 2011 was sent to him.
(2) The applicant at the hearing of the OS application before the High court did not file any affidavit-in-reply but only submitted orally before the court. He was not represented by counsel.
(3) The applicant was appointed by the respondent as the Imam of the Ar-Rahimah Mosque, Kampong Pandan, Kuala Lumpur between the years 2007 to 2008. The service of the applicant as the Imam was later terminated by the respondent.
(4) The applicant had never challenged the termination of his service as the Imam by the respondent at any of the court having such jurisdiction either before the Civil court or the Syariah court.
(5) The applicant appealed to the court of Appeal against the decision of the High court in the OS application giving vacant possession of the housing quarters to the respondent. The court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal with no order as to costs.
(6) The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal before the Federal court against the decision of the court of Appeal dismissing his appeal. The applicant filed by way of a Notice with various documents attached to it but without a supporting affidavit.
(7) At the outset of the hearing of the applicant's leave application before this court on 22 February 2012, learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the motion papers of the applicant were not in order and there was non-compliance with the rule of procedure relating to the filing of leave application to appeal before this court.
(8) Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent and the reply by the applicant, this court allowed the preliminary objection of the respondent. The applicant's leave application was therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(9) As soon as the decision of this court was delivered the applicant was seen to have voiced his dissatisfaction by making unwarranted remarks against the bench followed by his act of throwing his pair of shoes towards the bench, one of which hit the shoulder of the Deputy Registrar on duty who was seated in front and below the bench of this court.
(10) This court having noted the sudden change of behaviour of the applicant directed the policeman on duty at the court to restrain the applicant but it took the policeman quite some time to bring the applicant under control. It must be mentioned here that there were other cases fixed for hearing before the court on that day and were to be heard after the disposal of the applicant's case.
(11) We were aware that the applicant had already committed the act of contempt in the face of the court when he made the unwarranted remarks and throwing his shoes towards the bench.
(12) Notwithstanding that the applicant had clearly committed contempt in the face of the court, we were of the view it was not appropriate at that point of time to immediately proceed with the contempt proceeding against the applicant. We noted that the applicant was restless and not in control of himself to face the contempt proceeding. We had to adjourn and stood down the hearing of other civil applications fixed for that morning
