If leave to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal, that will bethe end of the road for the applicant. The Federal Court has nopower to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. See AutoDunia Sdn Bhd v. Wong Sai Fatt & Ors 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 theFederal Court and not an appeal from the Court of Appeal. Theapplicant/appellant in the said application was asking the FederalCourt for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There isnothing in the Courts of Judicature Act making provision for suchan application. To put it simply that if an appeal is to be lodgedin the Court of Appeal in the circumstances falling within theterms of s. 68(1)(a) leave must first be obtained from the sameCourt. Likewise s. 96(a) dictates that before a notice of appealcan be filed in the Federal Court, its leave must first be obtained.The Federal Court has no power to grant leave for the purposeof lodging an appeal in the Court of Appeal.L A W
lxvii 1 CLJCurrent Law JournalMore recently in 2010 in Harcharan Singh Sohan Singh v. RanjitKaur S Gean Singh  3 CLJ 29, the Court of Appealdismissed the application for leave to appeal. What TengkuBaharudin Shah JCA said at pp. 38 and 39 deserves ourattention: The phrase ‘amount or value of the subject matter of theclaim’ in s. 68(1)(a) CJA was considered by the Supreme CourtinYai Yen Hon v. Teng Ah Kok & Sim Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor 2 CLJ 68 FC and it was held that it must be read as theamount or value of the claim filed in the civil suit and not thejudgment amount appealed against, that would be the determinantfactor in deciding whether leave was necessary. That was a casewhere the appellant claimed damages totalling RM4,000,000 arisingfrom an accident but only RM62,400 was awarded and it was heldthat leave of the court was not required for his appeal. Thedeterminant factor is the value of the subject matter as disclosedin the claim when filed. Applying that test the appellant mustnecessarily obtain leave of this court to pursue his appeal. As to whether leave was required in the case of claim forspecific relief, as in this case for a declaration, s. 68(1)(a) CJAmakes no exception for such a case. The said provision is clearand unambiguous – see Mohd Tahir Mohd Shariff v. RamlahAbdullah  1 CLJ 865. In Amer Mohideen Dawood v. SnehBhar (supra)the High Court ordered specific performance of acontract for sale of land against the appellant. His appeal waschallenged for being incompetent for failure to obtain leavealthough the value of the subject matter was less fromRM250,000. The appeal was dismissed by this court for beingincompetent as the value of the subject matter of the order ofspecific performance was the purchase price of the land whichwas RM99,000 and no leave was obtained from the Court ofAppeal. Our case is no different except the relief sought was fora declaration.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 80 pages?
The Land, Supreme Court of the United States, Real property law, land tenure, Current Law Journal