If leave to appeal is refused by the court of appeal

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

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.