Election challenges must be filed as election petitions to comply with constitutional requirements, establishing the importance of statutory procedure in resolving election disputes.

[1] There are two appeals before this court. These are:

(i) Rayuan Sivil No: W-02(IM)-884-05-2014; and

(ii) Rayuan Sivil No: W-02(IM)-885-05-2014.

At the outset, it must be observed that both appeals involve similar facts and issues with both the appellants seeking the same reliefs. That being the case, learned counsel for both parties had agreed to proceed with the above appeal number (i) only and that the decision in respect of the said appeal would bind the second appeal.

[2] To appreciate the contentions that have been raised before the court, it would be most apposite to state briefly the material facts. The appellant is appealing against the decision of the learned High court Judge delivered on 10 April 2014 allowing the respondent's notice of application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 to strike out the appellant's originating summons filed in that court on 10 July 2013.

[3] The appellant filed the abovesaid originating summons seeking a declaration that the respondent is not qualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Perak ("Legislative Assembly") by virtue of art XXX of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak ("State Constitution") and an injunction to perpetually restrain the respondent from entering or being present at or participating in any proceeding of the Legislative Assembly. The ground relied on by the appellant in this action is that when the respondent as a candidate contested and won in the general election on 5 May 2013 in the state constituency of Manong, the respondent was not a resident in the State of Perak. Instead, he was at that material time residing in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Therefore, the appellant is not qualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly.

[4] The respondent denies the allegation and replies in his affidavit that he is a resident in the State of Perak and his identity card bears his residence address in the said state.

[5] Before we embark on our deliberation in respect of the issue of a constitutional requirement that only a person residing in the State of Perak is qualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is necessary at this early stage of our judgment to consider whether this action is maintainable in the first place as according to learned counsel for the respondent, in actuality the action the appellant has commenced and the reliefs he is seeking have contravened art 118 of the Federal Constitution . For convenience we set out below art 118 of the - Method of challenging election 118. No election to the House of Representatives or to the Legislative Assembly of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the High court having jurisdiction where the election was held.

[6] The Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5) provides for the manner in which and the grounds upon which the election of a candidate may be declared void. One of the grounds that can be relied on for avoidance of the election of a candidate is that the candidate was at the time of his election a person disqualified for election. This ground is provided in s 32(e) of Act 5. In addition, the reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled to claim among others include a declaration that the election is void or a declaration that the person was not duly elected or ought not to have bee