Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1971
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
STORYWORLD SDN BHD & SATU LAGI – Appellant
Versus
KWOK PIN YOOK & SATU LAGI – Respondent
[Rayuan Sivil No: WA-12ANCvC-103-07/2025]
Disputes relating to the internal management, business, or governance of a cooperative society, as defined by statute, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the designated statutory commission and are excluded from the reach of the civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Act 1993 - Sections 82 and 83 - Dispute resolution - Jurisdiction - Application to set aside proceedings for lack of jurisdiction based on subject matter - Whether dispute between members and cooperative body regarding internal schemes falls within the purview of the statutory commission - A 12 r 10 Rules of Court 2012 - Procedure for disputing jurisdiction should be exercised early to avoid wastage of judicial time and prevent void orders. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 15)
(B) Civil Jurisdiction - Sessions Court - Subordinate Courts Act 1948 - Sections 59, 65 and 70 - Statutory tribunals established to resolve specific disputes - Existence of tribunals designed for speedier resolution through expert panels and does not preclude judicial review or appeal - Requirement to meticulously examine empowering statutes to define scope of authority between civil courts and tribunals. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants (defendants in the court below) filed an application under the Rules of Court to dispute the jurisdiction of the court to hear a claim brought by the plaintiffs (members of a cooperative society). The appellants argued that the matter involved a dispute between the cooperative and its members regarding the management of a specific financial scheme, which under the relevant cooperative legislation should be referred to a specialized commission rather than the civil court. The court below dismissed the application, holding that the claim was merely a contractual dispute.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court found that the dispute went beyond a simple contract, as it involved the governance, internal management, and administrative regulations of the cooperative society, including specific internal savings funds. The lower court failed to consider the foundational documents of the cooperative, which tethered the dispute directly to the cooperative's internal business and affairs as defined by the governing Act.
Issues: Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to hear a claim by members against a cooperative society, or whether such a dispute is exclusively reserved for the specialized commission under the relevant cooperative legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: The dispute was essentially an internal matter arising from the conduct and business of the cooperative society. Since the subject matter touched upon the management and internal affairs of the cooperative as defined by the Act, it fell squarely within the mandatory dispute resolution mechanism of the specialized commission, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs; the Sessions Court's order was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over sessions court jurisdiction versus cooperative commission authority. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedural requirements for challenging court jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. scope and hierarchy of civil, territorial, and tribunal-specific jurisdiction. (Para 10) |
PENGHAKIMAN
[1] Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang telah menolak permohonan perayu (Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua di Mahkamah Sesyen) bahawa Mahkamah Sesyen tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk mendengar kes ini. Permohonan tersebut dibuat di bawah A 12 k 10 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012).
[2] plaintif-plaintif adalah individu yang merupakan ahli koperasi. Defendan Kedua adalah sebuah koperasi yang didaftar di bawah Akta Koperasi 1993.
[3] Asas kepada permohonan tersebut ialah kuasa untuk memutuskan sesuatu pertikaian di antara plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua adalah boleh dilakukan oleh Suruhanjaya Koperasi Malaysia di bawah s 82(1) Akta Koperasi, 1993.
[4] Sebaliknya, plaintif menyatakan bahawa pertikaian di antara plaintif dan Defendan Pertama dan Kedua tidak termasuk di bawah s 82(1)(d) Akta Koperasi, 1993. Ia adalah berkaitan dengan kontrak di antara plaintif dan Defendan Kedua. Ia tidak mengecualikan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Sesyen untuk memutuskan pertikaian tersebut.
Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
[5] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berpendapat tuntutan plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua adalah di atas pelanggaran kontrak. Mahkamah Sesyen bersandarkan kepada kes Koperasi Telekom Malaysia Berhad v. Ismail Nordin & Ors [2020] 3 MLRH 1; [2020] 3 CLJ 277 dan memutuskan permohonan ini ditolak.
Analisa
[6] A 12 k 10 KKM 2012 telah memperuntukkan tatacara pertikaian mengenai bidang kuasa Mahkamah. Ia boleh dikemukakan permohonannya di A 12 k 10(3) KKM 2012:
(3) Suatu permohonan di bawah perenggan (1) atau (2) hendaklah dibuat melalui notis permohonan yang disokong dengan suatu afidavit yang menentusahkan fakta yang menjadi asas kepada permohonan itu dan suatu salinan afidavit itu hendaklah disampaikan dengan notis permohonan.
Sesungguhnya permohonan untuk pertikaian bidang kuasa itu adalah wajar untuk dilakukan seawal mungkin. Ini akan membolehkan isu bidang kuasa itu diputuskan sebelum perbicaraan dimulai. Ini akan mengelakkan masa kehakiman akan disia-siakan. Di samping itu, ia boleh mengelakkan daripada sebarang perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah yang tiada bidang kuasa akan menjadi batal dan tidak sah. Hal ini telah dinyatakan oleh Majlis Privy dalam kes Redifussion (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Alt-Gen of Hong Kong [1970] AC 1136 muka surat 1152 para E, seperti berikut:
Since lack of jurisdiction has the consequence that the court has no right to enter upon the inquiry as to whether there exists a state of facts which would entitle the court to grant to the plaintiffs the relief sought, the jurisdiction summons can succeed only if it is shown that, no matter what were the facts that the plaintiffs would be able to establish relating to the subject-matter of the dispute, viz., the passing of a bill in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, the court would have no power to grant relief of the kind sought against the defendants.
[7] Penelitian kepada A 12 KKM 2012 menunjukkan ia adalah berkaitan kemasukan kehadiran kepada writ. Namun, ia juga memperuntukkan tatacara permohonan pertikaian berkenaan bidang kuasa. Pada hemat Mahkamah, ia memberikan hak kepada pihak yang mempertikaikan bidang kuasa Mahkamah untuk mengemukakan permohonan kepada Mahkamah bicara untuk pertimbangan sebelum kes dimulakan perbicaraannya. Ini bertujuan bagi membolehkan isu berkenaan bidang kuasa Mahkamah diputuskan seawal mungkin sebelum prosiding bermula.
[8] Adalah didapati bahawa terdapat permohonan pertikaian bidang kuasa yang dibuat atas alasan misalnya kekebalan daripada tindakan. Ini telah timbul dalam kes Dato Param Cumaraswamy v. MBF Capital Bhd & Anor [1997] 2 MLRA 43; [1997] 3 MLJ 824; [1998] 1 C
