Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5836
HIGH COURT (MIRI)
Stephen Chung, JC
Foo Khai Yuen & Anor – Plaintiff
Versus
Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara Kuching Negeri Sarawak – Defendant
SUIT NO 22–56 OF 2007 (MR)
Taufik bin Mohd Yusoff (Senior Federal Counsel) for the defendant.
The court upheld the regional registrar's discretion in rejecting an application to correct the date of birth, emphasizing the need for evidence to support claims based on cultural practices.
Headnote:(A) Registration of Births and Deaths Ordinance - Section 25 - Judicial review - Certiorari - Plaintiffs sought to quash the defendant’s decision rejecting the application for correction of date of birth, claiming the decision was irrational and against natural justice. The court found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims regarding a Chinese custom affecting the registered date of birth. Furthermore, the defendant’s discretion under the ordinance to reject the application was not exercised improperly. (Paras 22-44)
(B) Natural justice - Fundamental fairness and the right to reasons for decision - The court held that there is no duty imposed on the registrar to provide specific reasons for rejecting the application, provided that a generalized explanation is given. (Paras 36, 39)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs contested the rejection of the first plaintiff’s application to correct his date of birth on the grounds that the initial registration was an error based on a cultural custom. The proposal for correction was made following a consent order in a prior motion. (Paras 1-21)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the validity of their claims or the existence of the claimed cultural custom. There was no breach of the consent order, and the decision of the defendant was deemed reasonable and within his discretion. (Paras 44, 50)
Issues: The central questions were whether the defendant acted ultra vires and whether the failure to give specific reasons for the rejection constituted a breach of natural justice. (Paras 24-28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that discretion exercised by the regional registrar under the ordinance is broad and decisions should be based on evidence presented. The absence of supporting documentation for the claimed cultural custom undermines the plaintiffs' position. The application was rightly judged on its merits, leading to its rejection as valid. (Paras 43-46)
Result: Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed with costs.
Stephen Chung JC:
The plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are as follows:
(a)for an order of certiorari to remove the decision of the defendant dated the 5 February 1997 into this court and quashed;
(b)alternatively, for a declaration that the said decision of the defendant in refusing or rejecting the plaintiff’s application for correction was ultra vires, null and void on the grounds that the defendant had not used or had misused or abused his discretion or acted in excess of his powers or [2012] 8 MLJ 634 at 639jurisdiction or that he took irrelevant matters into consideration and that the decision was irrational, unreasonable or contrary to the elementary rules of natural justice and fairness;
(c)further and/or alternatively, for an order that the defendant make such correction on the first plaintiff’s date of birth by such entry or entries as provided under s 25(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Ordinance
(d)general damages for breach of the consent order as for all necessary and consequential direction.
At the commencement of trial, the parties agreed to the authenticity of the documents in the bundles of documents filed for the trial, the contents subject to proof.
The agreed facts of the case were as follows. On 30 May 1995, the first plaintiff filed Originating Motion No MR 7 of 1995 at the Miri High Court seeking, inter alia, for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the regional/senior registrar (of births and deaths) made on 30 January 1995 rejecting or refusing the first plaintiff’s application to correct his date of birth from 23 January 1938–23 January 1940 under s 25(3) of the Registration of Births and Death Ordinance
On 21 September 1995, at the hearing of OM No MR 7 of 1995, the High Court in Miri granted the first plaintiff an extension of time to file and apply for leave.
On the date of the hearing for certiorari in OM No MR 7 of 1995 on 8February 1996, the first plaintiff and the defendant agreed through their respective counsel to settle the case by way of a consent order whereby the defendant agreed to quash the impugned decision made on 30 January 1995 and that Ng Sam Lan (f) the second plaintiff herein was to apply for and on behalf of the first plaintiff the change of the first plaintiff’s date of birth from 23January 1938–23January 1940 with the same information and evidence available and produced in OM No MR 7 of 1995.
Pursuant to the consent order, on 8 February 1996 the second plaintiff applied under JPN 52 to change the first plaintiff’s date of birth. The Application Form JPN 52 was supported by the two statutory declarations of the second plaintiff dated 5 December 1995 and 8 February 1996 respectively and the statutory declaration of Foo Kok Ying (f) dated 8 February 1996. The statutory declaration of Lee Fay Neng (f) dated 6 October 1990 was contained in exh ‘A’ of the statement of claim.
[2012] 8 MLJ 634 at 640
About the end of March 1996, the second plaintiff received a letter dated 23 March 1996 from the defendant requesting for a meeting with her in Kuching.
On receipt of the letter, the first plaintiff went personally to the defendant’s office in Kuching and explained to a Ms Alizah bt Abdul Aziz that the second plaintiff was very old, could not walk, her hearing and vision were poor and it would be reasonable and convenient in the circumstances that she or any other officer should fly to Miri for the meeting. The first plaintiff also offered to pay for the air-fares and all expenses including accommodation. This offer was also in the first plaintiff’s lawyer’s letter dated 15 April 1996. The first plaintiff’s offer was not taken up by the defendant. The second plaintiff received another letter from the defendant’s Miri office dated the 30 July 1996 seeking the meeting.
By letters dated 21 January 1997 and 3 March 1997 from first plaintiff’s lawyers Ms Tai Choi Yu & Co asking about the delay, the defendant sent by fax a letter dated 5 February 1997 addressed to the second
