JUDGMENT

Allan Suman Pillai SCJ:

Introduction

[1] This judgment pertains to the Notice of Appeal (refer to encl 26) filed by the Defendant's counsel. The appeal challenges the decision rendered by the Langkawi Sessions Court on 27 February 2025, which dismissed the Defendant's application in encl 17 on the grounds that the counsels in the firm representing the Defendants were not licensed advocate and solicitor at the time of the hearing.

[2] The Defendant previously filed encl 10, seeking to set aside the default judgment. On 5 February 2025, this Court dismissed the Defendant's application. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal (Enclosure 20). It is evident that encl 20 must first be resolved in the High Court .

[3] The current application (Enclosure 26), as outlined in encl 17, is essentially the same as the previous one.

[4] The Defendant initially submitted encl 10 to set aside the default judgment. On 5 February 2025, the Court dimissed this application. Following this, the Defendant filed a notice of appeal (Enclosure 20), which must be addressed by the High Court before proceeding further.

[5] Currently, the Defendant has filed encl 26, which mirrors the previous application. Given the pending appeal on the same matter, the Court finds it procedurally improper to entertain encl 26 at this juncture.

[6] The dismissal was predicated on the fact that the Defendant's original counsel's firm on record which is Messrs Aidah Ghani & Associates were unlicensed by the Bar Council at the material time. The Defendant now contends that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the original counsel during the Mention on Behalf (MOB) which is Harmuni Binti Othman was duly licensed, and thus, the application should be reconsidered. The Defendant contends that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the original advocate possessed the necessary license to practice law in Malaysia.

[7] Upon thorough examination of the facts, applicable laws, and precedents, the Court has decided to dismiss the application. No order as to costs is made, resulting in each party bearing its own legal expenses.

Background Of The Case

[8] I will now provide a concise overview of the facts relevant to this case. The Defendant's original counsel, who lacked a valid practicing certificate from the Bar Council, appointed another licensed advocate to appear on their behalf for a hearing application in this Court . Upon recognizing that the principal counsel was unlicensed, this Court dismissed the Defendant's application and awarded costs to the Plaintiff. The Defendant has since appealed, asserting that the MOB counsel possessed the requisite license to practice.

[9] The Defendant has since appealed, arguing that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the original counsel during the Mention On Behalf (MOB) was duly licensed, and therefore, the application should be reconsidered. The Legal Profession Act 1976 (Act 166) (LPA) governs the practice of law in Malaysia, stipulating that only qualified individuals admitted to the Malaysian Bar are entitled to represent parties in legal proceedings. Section 36 of the LPA explicitly prohibits any person from acting as an advocate and solicitor unless they are duly admitted and registered under the LPA. This provision ensures that only those with the requisite qualifications and adherence to professional standards are permitted to offer legal representation.

[10] In the present case, the individual who appeared on behalf of the Defendant lacked the necessary credentials as mandated by the LPA. This contravention of statutory requirements undermines the integrity of legal proceedings and the administration of justice. The courts have consistently held that representation by unqualified persons is a serious irregularity. For instance, in Darshan Singh Khaira v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia; [2021] 5 MLJ 921; [2021] 10 CLJ 497 the Federal Court emphasized the necessity of proper legal representation in accordance wit