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

2007 MarsdenLR 1778

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
AU MENG NAM & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
UNG YAK CHEW & ORS – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

1

[1] I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother Raus Sharif in draft and agree with the conclusion he has arrived at and the orders he proposes to make in this appeal. However I wish to give my own reasons in addition to those already given by my learned brother The first has to do with the value of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v. Boonsom Boonyanit, [2001] 1 MLJ 241 as binding precedent. The second is this Even if the decision in Adorna Properties is good law, does what was there held apply to the facts of this case? In order to deal with the first point, it is necessary to hearken to the statutory scheme which creates indefeasibility of title to land.

[2] Let me take the first point. I begin with the concept of a binding precedent. In the hierarchy of a common law system of judicature, it is a general rule that the decisions of a higher court are binding on all courts below it. So, the decisions of an apex court are binding upon all courts below it. This practice of following the decisions of a higher court is often referred to as the doctrine of binding precedent or of stare decisis Its object is to ensure certainty in the law. B

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top