2025 MarsdenLR 6671

WAN BADARUDDIN BIN CHE WAN BASOR ALI v CIMB BANK BHD & ANORCaseAnalysis |[2025] MLJU 2488|[2025] 11 MLJ 760 Wan Badaruddin bin Che Wan Basor Ali v CIMB Bank Bhd & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 760
Copy Citation
Malayan Law Journal Reports
HIGH COURT (ALOR SETAR) MOHD JOHAN LEE J SUIT NO KA-22NCC-7–06 OF 2022 4 August 2025 Case Summary Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Conflict of jurisdiction between High Court and Shariah Court — Dispute over monies in joint fixed deposit account — Application to refer several questions of Islamic law to Shariah High Court — Question involving probate and administration — Question involving ‘hibah’ — Question involving applicability of survivorship clause — Whether questions ought to be referred to Shariah Court — Whether reference of Shariah questions ought to be made to Shariah Advisory Council of Bank Negara Malaysia — Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 s 56 — Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 24A(1) — Federal Constitution art 121(1A) & Ninth Schedule, List I — Rules of Court 2012 O 92 r 4 — Syariah Courts (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008 s 13(3)(b)
Almarhum DYTM Tunku Hj Abdul Malik Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah (‘the late DYTM Tunku Malik’) had opened a joint fixed deposit account (‘the said account’) with CIMB Bank Bhd (‘the first defendant’) and the plaintiff was named as a joint account holder of the said account. When the late DYTM Tunku Malik passed away, the ‘Jemaah Pemangku Sultan Kedah’ issued a written instruction to all financiers and banks to freeze all accounts belonging to the late DYTM Tunku Malik including the said account. Subsequently, via the order of the High Court, the second defendant was appointed as the administratrix of the estate of the late DYTM Tunku Malik and on the same day, the plaintiff’s solicitors demanded the first defendant to release the monies in the said account to the plaintiff but this effort was in vain. The second defendant had also managed to obtain the High Court’s order to include the said account as part of the Amended List of Assets of the late DYTM Tunku Malik’s estate. The plaintiff then filed the main suit to seek a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw all monies in the said account based on the survivorship clause. The second defendant on the other hand filed the present application (‘encl 129’) to refer several questions of Islamic law (Shariah) to the Kedah Shariah High Court under art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and/or s 24A(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and/or s 13(3)(b) of the Syariah Courts (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. The questions were as followed: (a) whether the money in the said account was included in the estate of the late DYTM Tunku Malik that needed to be distributed to the heirs according to ‘Faraid’ and Islamic inheritance law (‘the first question’); (b) whether there was any valid form of gift (‘alang’ or ‘pemberian’) made by the late DYTM Tunku Malik to the plaintiff regarding the money in the said account held by the first defendant (‘the second question’); and (c) whether the right of survivorship contained in the terms of opening the said account by the late DYTM Tunku Malik and the plaintiff applied to the estate of the late DYTM Tunku Malik according to Shariah law (‘the third question’). The plaintiff on the other hand had made an alternative argument that encl 129 should be dismissed on the basis that any reference on Shariah question should be channeled to the Shariah Advisory Council (‘the SAC’) of Bank Negara Malaysia (‘the BNM’) under Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 (‘Act 701’) (‘the plaintiff’s alternative argument’).
Held, allowing encl 129 in part:
(1)The Shariah Courts did not have the ultimate jurisdiction over disputes concerning the inheritance of testate or intestate property (a matter under the State List) when such disputes also involved probate and administration (a civil matter under the Federal List). While the Shariah Court may issue a ‘sijil faraid’ to certified the beneficiaries and their shares/rights in the estates, the civil High Court was the forum for granting letters of administration and the handling of the administration aspect therein. In addition, since the plaintiff’s original action was based on a breach of contract by the first defendant, it fell under civil jurisdiction, and thus no Shariah question arose. Therefore, the court held that the first question ought not to be referred to the Shariah Court (see paras 35–36 & 45–46).(2)The plaintiff had admitted in his affidavit that his claim for the money was based on a ‘pemberian ikhlas’ (sincere gift) from the late DYTM Tunku Malik. Since ‘pemberian ikhlas’ meant a form of gift or ‘hibah’ in Islamic law, the plaintiff was bound by his own sworn statement. He could not blow hot and cold at the same time. Therefore, the determination of whether the plaintiff was beneficially entitled to the money as a ‘pemberian ikhlas’ or ‘hibah’ fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court, which was competent to decide on the law of gift. This indeed aligned with the principle affirmed in the Federal Court case of Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101. Therefore, the court held that the second question ought to be referred to the Shariah Court (see paras 63–65 & 71).(3)It was clear that the first defendant, being a corporate entity incorporated under the Companies Act, lacked the capacity to profess any religion. As such, it fell outside the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court. Any attempt to subject the first defendant to Shariah proceedings would therefore be both unlawful and unconstitutional. Further, the dispute in the present case primarily involved civil matter (banking and contract law), not Islamic law. The core dispute concerned the interpretation, validity, and applicability of the ‘survivorship clause’ in the said account. This fell squarely within the realm of banking and contract law, which were civil matters explicitly governed by the Federal List (List I, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution). The court thus held that the third question ought not to be referred to the Shariah Court (see paras 83–84 & 92).(4)Section 56 of Act 701 stipulated clearly that reference to the SAC was only confined to proceedings relating to Islamic financial business. In the present case, the said fixed deposit joint account involved conventional banking and not Islamic banking, as such, the SAC was not the proper forum. Further, the real dispute in the present case involved application of law of gift/’hibah’ and Islamic law of succession (which fell under State List) whereas the SAC’s statutory duty was confined to ascertainment of Islamic law for disputes concerning Islamic financial business. Thus, again the SAC of BNM had no business in the present dispute (see paras 94 & 97).
Almarhum DYTM Tunku Hj Abdul Malik Ibni Almarhum Sultan Badlishah (‘Almarhum DYTM Tunku Malik’) telah membuka akaun simpanan tetap bersama (‘akaun tersebut’) dengan CIMB Bank Bhd (‘defendan pertama’) dan plaintif dinamakan sebagai pemegang akaun bersama akaun tersebut. Apabila Almarhum DYTM Tunku Malik mangkat, Jemaah Pemangku Sultan Kedah telah mengeluarkan arahan bertulis kepada semua pembiaya dan bank untuk membekukan semua akaun milik Almarhum DYTM Tunku Malik termasuk akaun tersebut. Selepas itu, melalui perintah Mahkamah Tinggi, defendan kedua telah dilantik sebagai pentadbir harta pusaka allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik dan pada hari yang sama, peguamcara plaintif menuntut defendan pertama untuk memberikan wang dalam akaun tersebut kepada plaintif tetapi usaha ini sia-sia. Defendan kedua juga telah berjaya mendapatkan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi untuk memasukkan akaun tersebut sebagai sebahagian daripada Senarai Pindaan Aset harta pusaka allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik. Plaintif kemudiannya memfailkan saman utama untuk mendapatkan pengisytiharan bahawa plaintif berhak mengeluarkan semua wang dalam akaun tersebut berdasarkan klausa kemandirian. Defendan kedua pula telah memfailkan permohonan semasa (‘lampiran 129’) untuk merujuk beberapa persoalan undang-undang Islam (Shariah) kepada Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Kedah di bawah perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan/atau s 24A(1) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dan/atau s 13(3)(b) Enakmen Mahkamah Syariah (Kedah Darul Aman) 2008 dan/atau A 92 k 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. Soalan-soalannya adalah seperti berikut: (a) sama ada wang dalam akaun tersebut termasuk dalam harta pusaka allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik yang perlu diagihkan kepada waris mengikut ‘faraid’ dan undang-undang pusaka Islam (‘soalan pertama’); (b) sama ada terdapat apa-apa bentuk hadiah (‘alang’ atau ‘pemberian’) yang sah dibuat oleh allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik kepada plaintif berkenaan wang dalam akaun tersebut yang dipegang oleh defendan pertama (‘soalan kedua’); dan (c) sama ada hak kemandirian yang terkandung dalam syarat pembukaan akaun tersebut oleh allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik dan plaintif terpakai kepada harta pusaka allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik mengikut undang-undang Syariah (‘soalan ketiga’). Plaintif sebaliknya telah membuat hujahan alternatif bahawa lampiran 129 harus ditolak atas dasar bahawa apa-apa rujukan mengenai persoalan Syariah hendaklah disalurkan kepada Majlis Penasihat Syariah (‘MPS’) Bank Negara Malaysia (‘BNM’) di bawah Akta Bank Negara Malaysia 2009 (‘Akta 701’) (‘hujahan alternatif plaintif’).
Diputuskan, membenarkan sebahagian lampiran 129:
(1)Mahkamah Syariah tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa muktamad ke atas pertikaian berkaitan pewarisan harta berwasiat atau harta tak berwasiat (perkara di bawah Senarai Negeri) apabila pertikaian tersebut turut melibatkan probet dan pentadbiran (perkara sivil di bawah Senarai Persekutuan). Walaupun Mahkamah Syariah boleh mengeluarkan ‘sijil faraid’ untuk memperakui benefisiari dan saham/hak mereka dalam harta pusaka, Mahkamah Tinggi sivil adalah forum bagi pemberian surat kuasa mentadbir dan pengendalian aspek pentadbiran di dalamnya. Di samping itu, oleh kerana tindakan asal plaintif adalah berdasarkan pelanggaran kontrak oleh defendan pertama, ia terletak di bawah bidang kuasa sivil, dan oleh itu tiada persoalan Syariah yang timbul. Oleh itu, mahkamah berpendapat bahawa soalan pertama tidak sepatutnya dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Syariah (lihat perenggan 35–36 & 45–46).(2)Plaintif telah mengakui dalam afidavitnya bahawa tuntutannya ke atas wang tersebut adalah berdasarkan ‘pemberian ikhlas’ (hadiah ikhlas) daripada Allahyarham DYTM Tunku Malik. Memandangkan ‘pemberian ikhlas’ bermaksud satu bentuk pemberian atau ‘hibah’ dalam undang-undang Islam, plaintif terikat dengan akuan bersumpahnya sendiri. Dia tidak boleh ‘blow hot and cold’ pada masa yang sama. Oleh itu, penentuan sama ada plaintif berhak mendapat wang tersebut sebagai ‘pemberian ikhlas’ atau ‘hibah’ terletak dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah, yang kompeten untuk membuat keputusan berhubung undang-undang pemberian. Ini sememangnya sejajar dengan prinsip yang ditegaskan dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101. Oleh itu, mahkamah berpendapat bahawa soalan kedua perlu dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Syariah (lihat perenggan 63–65 & 71).(3)Adalah jelas bahawa defendan pertama, sebagai entiti korporat yang diperbadankan di bawah Akta Syarikat, tidak mempunyai keupayaan untuk menganuti mana-mana agama. Oleh yang demikian, ia berada di luar bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah. Apa-apa percubaan untuk meletakkan defendan pertama kepada prosiding Syariah oleh itu adalah menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak berperlembagaan. Selanjutnya, pertikaian dalam kes semasa terutamanya melibatkan perkara sivil (perbankan dan undang-undang kontrak), bukan undang-undang Islam. Pertikaian teras adalah berkaitan dengan tafsiran, keabsahan, dan kebolehgunaan ‘klausa kemandirian’ dalam akaun tersebut. Ini termasuk dalam bidang undang-undang perbankan dan kontrak, yang merupakan perkara sivil yang dikawal secara jelas oleh Senarai Persekutuan (Senarai I, Jadual Kesembilan Perlembagaan Persekutuan). Oleh itu, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa soalan ketiga tidak sepatutnya dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Syariah (lihat perenggan 83–84 & 92).(4)Seksyen 56 Akta 701 menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa rujukan kepada MPS hanya terhad kepada prosiding berkaitan perniagaan kewangan Islam. Dalam kes semasa, akaun bersama simpanan tetap tersebut melibatkan perbankan konvensional dan bukan perbankan Islam, oleh itu, MPS bukanlah forum yang sepatutnya. Selanjutnya, pertikaian sebenar dalam kes semasa melibatkan penggunaan undang-undang hadiah/ ‘hibah’ dan undang-undang penggantian Islam (yang termasuk dalam Senarai Negeri) manakala kewajipan berkanun MPS terhad kepada penentuan undang-undang Islam untuk pertikaian berkaitan perniagaan kewangan Islam. Oleh itu, sekali lagi MPS BNM tidak mempunyai urusan dalam pertikaian semasa (lihat perenggan 94 & 97).Cases referred to
Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v Taman Ihsan Jaya Sdn Bhd & Ors (Koperasi Seri Kota Bukit Cheraka Bhd, third party) [2008] 5 MLJ 631, HC (refd)
Dahlia Dhaima bt Abdullah v Majlis Agama Islam Selangor and another appeal [2025] 1 MLJ 334, FC (folld)
Iki Putra bin Mubarak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 323, FC (folld)
Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals [2018] 1 MLJ 545; [2018] 3 CLJ 145, FC (refd)
Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors v Berjaya Books Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 3 MLJ 65, CA (refd)
JRI Resources Sdn Bhd v Kuwait Finance House (M) Bhd (President of Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia & Anor, interveners) [2019] 3 MLJ 561; [2019] 5 CLJ 569, FC (refd)
Jumaaton dan satu lagi lwn Raja Hizaruddin [1998] 6 MLJ 556, CA (refd)
Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2006] 4 MLJ 705, CA (refd)
Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101, FC (folld)
Mohamad Taupik Mohamad Nor & yang lain lwn Siti Rahman Mohd Noor & Yang Lain [2025] MLJU 1927; [2016] CLJU 1462, HC (refd)
Pathmanathan a/l Krishnan (also known as Muhammad Riduan bin Abdullah) v Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho and other appeals [2016] 4 MLJ 455, CA (refd)
Potensi Bernas Sdn Bhd v Datu Badaruddin Datu Mustapha [2009] MLJU 1972; [2009] 8 CLJ 573, HC (refd)
Public Bank Bhd v New Ace Digital Print Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] 3 MLJ 421; [2019] CLJU 294, FC (distd)
SIS Forum (M) & Anor v Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor & Ors [2025] 4 MLJ 625; [2025] 7 CLJ 179, FC (refd)
Siti Hasnah Vangarama Abdullah v Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (as the President of Perkim) & Ors [2012] MLJU 1819; [2012] 7 CLJ 845, CA (refd)
Subashini a/p Rajasingam v Saravanan a/l Thangathoray and other appeals [2008] 2 MLJ 147, FC (refd)
Legislation referred to
Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 s 56
Companies Act 2016
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 s 24A(1)
Federal Constitution art 121(1A), Ninth Schedule, List I, List II
Financial Services Act 2013
Islamic Financial Services Act 2013
Rules of Court 2012 O 34, O 92 r 4
Mohd Jamil Yaacob (Srihana Mohamad & Partners) for the plaintiff. Saresh Mahendran (Shearn Delamore & Co) for the first defendant. Hizri Hasshan (with Dorina Abdullah) (Najib Hisham Isa) for the second defendant.