Section 9(c) Societies Act 1966: Assessing Mandatory Compliance in Legal Proceedings

Analyzing Whether Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 Represents a Mandatory Procedural Requirement

Registered societies often play a vital role in civic and community life, yet they operate within a strict regulatory framework. When these entities become involved in legal disputes—whether as plaintiffs or defendants—the procedural path they must follow is explicitly set out by legislation. A central question that frequently arises in courtrooms concerns the standing of these societies and their representatives. Specifically, is Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 a mandatory requirement that must be strictly observed, or does it allow for discretionary flexibility?

Understanding this section is critical for legal practitioners and society administrators alike. Failing to identify the correct representative for a society in a lawsuit can lead to costly delays, motions to strike out, and, in some cases, the dismissal of a claim. The following analysis examines how the courts have interpreted this requirement and what it means for ongoing or future litigation.

The Mandatory Nature of Section 9(c)

There is a clear consensus in the Malaysian judiciary regarding the status of Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966. The courts have consistently held that the requirement is mandatory. This means that a party involved in litigation concerning a society cannot simply bypass the statutory protocols for identifying the appropriate party to sue or be sued.

The High Court has affirmed this position in several landmark rulings. For instance, in the case of Ramachandran Meyappan & Ors v. Chellapana K Kalimuthu & Ors, the court underscored that the requirement to specify the office bearers or the registered public officer under Section 9(c) is mandatory

POOVANESWARAN MOGAN & ORS vs SURESH MURUGARPILLAI - 2024 MarsdenLR 308

. This principle was reaffirmed in UMNO Bahagian Pekan v. Public Prosecutor, where the judiciary once again highlighted the imperative nature of this statutory provision MYS0000016181.

Because the provision is mandatory, a party cannot argue that compliance is merely optional or subject to the convenience of the litigation. When a society is a party to an action, the law expects strict adherence to the mechanism of identifying the registered public officer. If a party ignores these procedural hurdles, they risk having their claims challenged on the basis of locus standi.

Consequences of Non-Compliance: Fatal or Curable?

While the requirement is mandatory, the legal system provides a safety net for genuine procedural errors. The courts have generally held that non-compliance with Section 9(c) is not necessarily fatal to an action. This distinction is crucial: just because the requirement is mandatory does not mean that every minor error leads to an automatic striking out of the case.

In practice, the courts often allow for an amendment to the notice of motion or pleadings to rectify the defect. This approach balances the mandatory nature of the statute with the interests of justice, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat substantive claims.

For example, in one forfeiture action, the court observed: the requirement in s 9(c) is mandatory and that the notice of motion could be corrected, and it should be corrected precisely because of that mandatory nature

PERIASAMY RAMASAMY LWN. AGENSI KB EDIBLE OIL SDN BHD & SATU LAGI; PERSATUAN BOLA SEPAK DAERAH TEMERL.... - 2022 MarsdenLR 722

. Similarly, in UMNO Bahagian Pekan v. Pendakwa Raya, the court explicitly stated that non-compliance of s 9(c) is not fatal and can be corrected by way of amendment MYS0000016181.

However, litigants should not view this cure as a license for sloppy drafting. The requirement is mandatory, and a party cannot rely on a discretionary cure where the statutory provision has been blatantly disregarded without cause

POOVANESWARAN MOGAN & ORS vs SURESH MURUGARPILLAI - 2024 MarsdenLR 308

. If a defect is pointed out, it is the responsibility of the party to seek leave to amend the notice of motion or pleadings promptly. Failing to do so can result in the claim being struck out.

Scope of the Provision: Beyond Civil Suits

One common area of confusion involves the scope of Section 9(c). Some litigants have mistakenly argued that the provision only applies to specific types of civil disputes. However, the courts have clarified that Section 9(c) applies more broadly, including in criminal and forfeiture proceedings.

In an application involving the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, the court concluded that section 9(c) was not limited solely to civil proceedings

UMNO BAHAGIAN PEKAN vs PP

. In that instance, the respondent's failure to satisfy the legal requirements regarding the identification of the public officer in a forfeiture action became a point of contention. Ultimately, the court permitted the correction of the notice of motion, ordering that it must be filed within seven days, failing which the main action would be struck out. This underscores that even in non-civil contexts, the mandatory procedural bar remains in effect.

Addressing Locus Standi Challenges

The most common context for invoking Section 9(c) is when a defendant challenges the locus standi of the plaintiffs. When plaintiffs initiate a suit on behalf of a society—such as a temple or an association—without being the registered public officer or authorized office bearers, they lack the legal standing to pursue the action.

The courts have been rigorous in enforcing this. In cases where plaintiffs failed to show they were the proper registered representatives, their claims were frequently struck out as being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process

JEGA JOTHY C THIAGARAJAH & ORS vs PERSATUAN RUMAH BERHALA SRI NAGESWARI (ENCL 33)

. In Societies Act 1966 & Ors, the court reiterated that the management committee is the proper party to act on behalf of the association, and plaintiffs who lacked the requisite personal interest or nexus were barred from continuing their claims MYS0000000011964.

This serves as a stern reminder: the Societies Act 1966 dictates who can initiate legal action. If you are not the registered public officer or an authorized bearer, you likely do not have the standing to bring the suit, regardless of how valid your grievances against the management might be.

Practical Recommendations for Practitioners

Given the judicial stance on Section 9(c), practitioners should consider the following best practices:

Verify Status Immediately: Before filing any action involving a registered society, confirm the identity of the registered public officer with the Registrar of Societies.
Strict Compliance: Always aim for strict compliance with Section 9(c) when initiating actions, especially where the misconduct of office bearers is the core issue
POOVANESWARAN MOGAN & ORS vs SURESH MURUGARPILLAI - 2024 MarsdenLR 308
.
Prompt Amendment: If an opposing party highlights a defect in your pleadings regarding Section 9(c), do not delay. Seek leave to amend the notice of motion or pleadings immediately to cure the defect
PERIASAMY RAMASAMY LWN. AGENSI KB EDIBLE OIL SDN BHD & SATU LAGI; PERSATUAN BOLA SEPAK DAERAH TEMERL.... - 2022 MarsdenLR 722
. Waiting for the court to dismiss the action is a risk that is easily avoidable.

While the legal system recognizes that human or clerical error occurs, the mandatory nature of Section 9(c) requires that all parties respect the procedural protocols set by the Societies Act. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that only authorized individuals act on behalf of a society, preventing unauthorized, frivolous, or vexatious litigation. Always consult with qualified legal counsel to ensure that your procedural approach aligns with these judicial standards.

#SocietiesAct #MalaysianLaw #LegalCompliance