The Registrar of Societies must only determine the existence of a dispute among office bearers based on presented documentation without inquiring into the validity of internal meetings, and is not obliged to provide reasons for cancellation actions.

[22] In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held inter alia as follows:

"We therefore disagree with the learned High Court Judge when he found that "discovery is not relevant because the respondent has averred that all the documents pertaining to his decision-making process are before the Court and there is no evidence adduced by the applicant to show that the materials put before the Court are inaccurate or false."

"This drastic power could not have been contemplated to have existed in a vacuum. It is our view that the discretion given the respondent in s 16(1) is not unfettered. In scrutinising the documents before us and the legal position of this appeal, we find that the respondent had not exercised his discretion in accordance with the law. In fact, in deciding the way he did, in view of the facts before him, we find that his was an arbitrary decision."

"In view of the above, it is our view that the respondent's decision embodied in his letter of notice dated 5 November 2002 purporting to cancel the registration of SNAP was ultra viresand void and the respondent had thus acted in excess of his jurisdiction."

[23] Leave of this Court was granted to the ROS on these four questions:

Question 1

Sama ada Pendaftar Pertubuhan mempunyai kuasa di bawah s 16(1) Akta Pertubuhan 1966 untuk memutuskan kesahihan mesyuarat-mesyuarat pihak-pihak dalam pertikaian sebelum memutuskan terdapat pertikaian mengenai identity pemegang-pemegang jawatan.

(Whether the ROS has any power under s 16(1) Societies Act 1960 to determine the validity of the meetings of parties in the dispute before he decided that a dispute had arisen pertaining to identity of the office-bearers.)

Question 2

Sama ada mahkamah, setelah menimbang fakta kes secara objektif, boleh memutuskan bahawa tidak terdapat pertikaian mengenai identity pemegang-pemegang jawatan bagi membolehkan Pendaftar Pertubuhan untuk mengeluarkan notis di bawah s 16(1) Akta Pertubuhan 1966.

(Whether the Court, having considered the facts of the case objectively, can decide that there is no dispute pertaining to the identity of the office-bearers to enable the ROS to issue the notice under s 16(1) of Act 335.)

Question 3

Sama ada di bawah s 16 dibaca bersama s 13(2) Akta Pertubuhan 1966, Pendaftar Pertubuhan hendaklah bertindak secara mekanikal atau mempunyai budibicara untuk membatalkan pendaftaran sesuatu pertubuhan sekiranya syarat-syarat di bawah s 16(1) tidak dipatuhi.

(Whether under s 16 read with s 13(2) of Act 335, the ROS needs to act mechanically or does he have any discretion to cancel the registration of a society if the conditions in s 16(1) have not been satisfied.)

Question 4

Sama ada di bawah s 16 dibaca bersama s 13 Akta Pertubuhan 1966, Pendaftar Pertubuhan dikehendaki untuk memberikan alasan-alasan bagi keputusan beliau untuk membatalkan pendaftaran sesuatu pertubuhan sekiranya syarat-syarat di bawah s 16(1) tidak dipatuhi.

(Whether, under s 16 read with s 13 of Act 335, the ROS is required to give any reasons for his decision to cancel the registration of a society for failing to comply with the requirements of s 16(1).)

Question 1

[24] It was the contention of the respondent that the first threshold to pass before invoking s 16(1) of the Act is for the ROS to form an opinion of the existence of a dispute. And this he can only do after examining the facts and circumstances to determine if a 'real dispute' had arisen. The ROS must thus first decide if there was a valid dispute, and cannot act on a mere allegation; otherwise his opinion cannot be said to be an independent one, and capable of being challenged