SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 MarsdenLR 4193 ; 2008 MarsdenLR 1

ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD, NIK HASHIM, HASHIM YUSOFF, AZMEL MAAMOR, ZULKEFLI MAKINUDIN
BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN MALAYSIA – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ:

[1] By an originating summons dated 27 July 2007, the Bar Council ("plaintiff") prayed for "a declaration that the appointment of Dr. Badariah bte Sahamid as a Judicial Commissioner of the High Court of Malaya is null and void and of no effect on the ground that the said appointment is in contravention of Art. 122AB read together with Art. 123 of the Federal Constitution."

[2] On 27 August 2007, ie, one day before the matter was scheduled to be mentioned before the learned judge of the High Court, the Government of Malaysia ("defendant") filed a summons in chambers for questions of law relating to the appointment be referred to this court pursuant to s. 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. On 18 September 2007, after hearing the parties, the learned judge allowed the defendant's application and referred the constitutional issues to this court for its determination. The issues are as follows:

i. Whether the words "advocates of those courts" appearing in Article 123 of the Federal Constitution requires an Advocate to have been in practice for a period of ten years preceding his/her appointment as a Judicial Commissioner under Article 122AB of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top