Back
Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final ruling on application dismissal (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observations on inherent and statutory jurisdiction (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. factual background of the case (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. arguments presented regarding jurisdiction and finality (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. ratio decidendi regarding jurisdiction and inherent powers (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
[1]I have read the judgment in draft of my learned sister, Heliliah bt Mohd Yusof FCJ and I agree with the conclusion reached by Her Ladyship that the applicant has failed to meet the requirements of r 137Court 1995 ('r 137') and consequentially the applicant's application has been dismissed with costs. I would like to state my views in dismissing the applicant's application with particular reference to the scope and purpose of r 137
[2]I am of the view r 137Court the statutory jurisdiction or the new jurisdiction to hear any application to review its own decision. However, under r 137Court still has the limited 'inherent power' or 'inherent jurisdiction' in order to maintain its character as a court of justice to hear any appli
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
