MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN vs VICTORIA JAYASEELE MARTIN & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 1936

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN – Appellant
Versus
VICTORIA JAYASEELE MARTIN & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Sulaiman Abdullah,Hanif Kahtri,Zulkifli Che Yong,Azmi Mohd Rais,Ilyani Noor Khuszairy,Abdul Rahim Sinwan ,Respondent Advocate: Cyrus Das,Benjamin Dawson,Ranjit Singh,Villie Nethi

Table of Content
1. issues surrounding the admission of non-muslims to syariah law practice. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. judicial review procedures and claims of ultra vires regulations in the context of admission rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
3. the interpretation of legal provisions concerning qualifications required for peguam syarie. (Para 26 , 27 , 33)
4. final determinations about the legality and constitutionality of the rules regarding qualifications. (Para 52 , 60)

JUDGMENT

Raus Sharif PCA:

Introduction

[1] These two appeals raise the issue of whether a non-Muslim can be admitted as Peguam Syarie to represent parties in any proceedings before the Syariah Court in Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur. In Appeal No: 01(f)-10-03- 2014(W), the appellant is the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan ("Majlis") while in Appeal No: 01(f)-09-03-2014(W) the appellant is the Peguam Negara Malaysia.

[2] The respondent in both these appeals is Victoria Jayaseele Martin, an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. She is also a Diploma holder in Syariah Law and Practice from the International Islamic University of Malaysia. She is of the Christian faith.

[3] For convenience, we will refer the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 1936

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAMAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN – AppellantVersusVICTORIA JAYASEELE MARTIN & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN – Appellant
Versus
VICTORIA JAYASEELE MARTIN & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent