If leave to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal that will be the end of

If leave to appeal is refused by the court of appeal

This preview shows page 66 - 68 out of 80 pages.

If leave to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal, that will be the end of the road for the applicant. The Federal Court has no power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. See Auto Dunia Sdn Bhd v. Wong Sai Fatt & Ors [1995] 3 CLJ 485, FC, where Hj Lamin bin Hj Mohd Yunus PCA said at p. 492: But the case before us was in the nature of an application to the Federal Court and not an appeal from the Court of Appeal. The applicant/appellant in the said application was asking the Federal Court for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is nothing in the Courts of Judicature Act making provision for such an application. To put it simply that if an appeal is to be lodged in the Court of Appeal in the circumstances falling within the terms of s. 68(1)(a) leave must first be obtained from the same Court. Likewise s. 96(a) dictates that before a notice of appeal can be filed in the Federal Court, its leave must first be obtained. The Federal Court has no power to grant leave for the purpose of lodging an appeal in the Court of Appeal. L A W
Image of page 66
lxvii [2013] 1 CLJ Current Law Journal More recently in 2010 in Harcharan Singh Sohan Singh v. Ranjit Kaur S Gean Singh [2010] 3 CLJ 29, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal. What Tengku Baharudin Shah JCA said at pp. 38 and 39 deserves our attention: [14] The phrase ‘amount or value of the subject matter of the claim’ in s. 68(1)(a) CJA was considered by the Supreme Court in Yai Yen Hon v. Teng Ah Kok & Sim Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [1997] 2 CLJ 68 FC and it was held that it must be read as the amount or value of the claim filed in the civil suit and not the judgment amount appealed against, that would be the determinant factor in deciding whether leave was necessary. That was a case where the appellant claimed damages totalling RM4,000,000 arising from an accident but only RM62,400 was awarded and it was held that leave of the court was not required for his appeal. The determinant factor is the value of the subject matter as disclosed in the claim when filed. Applying that test the appellant must necessarily obtain leave of this court to pursue his appeal. [15] As to whether leave was required in the case of claim for specific relief, as in this case for a declaration, s. 68(1)(a) CJA makes no exception for such a case. The said provision is clear and unambiguous – see Mohd Tahir Mohd Shariff v. Ramlah Abdullah [2004] 1 CLJ 865. In Amer Mohideen Dawood v. Sneh Bhar (supra) the High Court ordered specific performance of a contract for sale of land against the appellant. His appeal was challenged for being incompetent for failure to obtain leave although the value of the subject matter was less from RM250,000. The appeal was dismissed by this court for being incompetent as the value of the subject matter of the order of specific performance was the purchase price of the land which was RM99,000 and no leave was obtained from the Court of Appeal. Our case is no different except the relief sought was for a declaration.
Image of page 67
Image of page 68

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 80 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • jane
  • Law, The Land, Supreme Court of the United States, Real property law, land tenure, Current Law Journal

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture