Back
2013 MarsdenLR 2146
Karambunai Corp Bhd & Ors – Plaintiff
Versus
Ag Damit bin Ag Tengah – Defendant
Civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction over land disputes involving non-Muslims, and cannot dismiss cases merely involving Islamic law elements; Shariah court orders affecting non-Muslim registered interests are invalid.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 121(1A) - Shariah Courts Enactment 2004 - Land dispute - Jurisdiction of civil court versus Shariah court - Plaintiff's registered interest in land was unduly affected by ex parte orders from Shariah Court, which were later set aside - The court ruled that civil courts have the jurisdiction over land disputes and cannot dismiss cases merely due to the involvement of Islamic law elements, reinforcing the principle that Shariah Courts acted beyond their jurisdiction regarding non-Muslim rights (Paras 24, 30, 33).
(B) Res Judicata - The court found that since issues regarding the plaintiffs' rights were never conclusively settled by competent authority, res judicata did not apply. (Paras 10, 11).
(C) Abuse of Process - While the defendant invoked Shariah Courts improperly, the court did not find it an abuse as the tort occurred in Shariah Courts; thus, no damages were owed by the defendant (Paras 32, 33).
Facts of the case:
Dispute involved Karambunai land where plaintiffs alleged defendant interfered with their registered interest via orders from Shariah Court, which were subsequently set aside by higher court. Civil court ruled they have jurisdiction over the land and could protect plaintiffs from further interference.
Findings of Court:
Civil High Court is competent to adjudicate land disputes involving registered interests of non-Muslims; Shariah Court orders affecting such interests are invalid.
Issues: Whether civil court has jurisdiction pertaining to registered interests and the applicability of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: Civil High Court’s jurisdiction is exclusive concerning land disputes and cannot be overridden by decisions from Shariah Courts if such decisions exceed their jurisdiction in matters involving non-Muslim interests.
Result: Plaintiffs granted a declaration preventing enforcement of Shariah Court orders and prohibiting the defendant from interfering with their proprietary rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute concerns registered land interest. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. defendant's actions were aggressive against plaintiffs' rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues regarding jurisdiction and res judicata arose. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. shariah courts lack jurisdiction over land disputes involving non-muslims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. civil court affirmed its role to protect fundamental rights. (Para 24 , 33) |
Case Summary
The dispute in this case concerned the Karambunai land in Tuaran (‘the said land’) where the second plaintiff’s resort was located on. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant had surreptitiously interfered with their registered interest in the land by obtaining various ex parte orders from the Shariah Court. The Shariah Court of Appeal had set aside the said orders. The defendant was also alleged to have improperly applied for a replacement title from the assistant collector of land (‘ACLR’) of Tuaran. The order of the ACLR was set aside by the Director of Lands and Surveys by the time of trial. The plaintiffs prayed for declarations that the Shariah Court orders would not bind them. In opposing the plaintiffs’ claim, the defendant alleged that his act in obtaining the impugned orders was lawful and was not mala fide. The defendant claimed that the impugned orders were obtained in good faith in the course of the administration of the estate of Pg Siti Hapsah and that when he lodged a caveat on the said land, he was still the lawful administrator pursuant to the order of the Shariah Court. The defendant averred that the instant claim was res judicata because the impugned orders had been set aside and that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent the decision of the Shariah Court of Appeal. The defendant further averred that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide on the division and inheritance of a deceased Muslim as it fell within the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court. The issues to be determined by the court were: whether the action was academic as all the said impugned orders had been set aside; whether the action was res judicata; and whether the civil court had the power to consider a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariah Court.
Held, allowing the claim:
(1)Although all the relevant Shariah Court orders that impinged on registered interest of the plaintiffs in the said land had been set aside, the [2014] 8 MLJ 16 at 17action was not academic. It was common ground that the Shariah Court of Appeal had ordered a retrial of the case. This was the principal action before the Shariah Court. The Shariah Court of Appeal had not only ordered a retrial but also ordered interested parties including the second plaintiff to appear at the trial. Although, the retrial of the said action had not commenced for more than two years since the date of the order of the Shariah Court of Appeal, there was a possibility that it might proceed as the action had not been withdrawn by the defendant (see para 9).
(2)The issue of the plaintiffs’ registered interest in the said land had not been finally adjudicated by the Shariah Court. Even if the issue had been adjudicated by the Shariah Court, doctrine of res judicata could only be invoked in cases when a matter between two parties had been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. This dispute clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court alone. In the premises, the Shariah High Court and Shariah Subordinate clearly acted in excess of jurisdiction insofar as the impugned orders affected the registered i
