Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Court of Appeal held that ouster clauses are unconstitutional except in cases of national security (such as those involving the Internal Security Act) or overriding national interest. The preclusion of the right to judicial review was a violation of Article 5 of the Constitution, which was to be read in a broad manner, in line with Tan Tek ...
Several acts of arson and vandalism have been carried out against churches in Malaysia since the Herald decision on 31 December 2009. The government has responded by increasing security at places of worship and condemning the attacks. The Malaysian opposition has criticised the government's handling of the Herald case and the resulting protests ...
Nik Elin Zurina bt Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v. Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, [2024] 2 MLJ 140 is a landmark decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia in which the court held that the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly did not have the power to enact 16 Sharia laws pertaining to criminal matters, which were deemed null, void and unconstitutional.
Lee Kwan Woh v. Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 CLJ 631 was a case heard in the Federal Court of Malaysia.The Federal Court unanimously allowed Lee's appeal against the death sentence because of irregularities in his original trial for drug trafficking in the High Court, and held that the trial judge's behaviour constituted a violation of Article 5 of the Constitution of Malaysia, which provides ...
Malaysia's appeals court on Monday granted a bid by jailed ex-premier Najib Razak to see a document he said should allow him to serve his sentence at home, in a rare win for a disgraced former ...
Adong bin Kuwau & Ors [1998] 2 CLJ 665; The Malaysian case of Nor Anak Nyawai & Ors v. Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2001] 2 CLJ 769; The Canadian case of Calder v. A-G of British Columbia [1973] 34 DLR (3d) 145; The Australian cases of Mabo & Ors v. State of Queensland & Anor [1986] 64 ALR 1, Mabo v. Queensland [1991–1992] 175 CLR 1
The Malaysia Sulu case is an international legal dispute in which persons claiming to be heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu made claims against the government of Malaysia by way of arbitration. The claims were subsequently litigated in the Spanish, French, and Dutch court systems. [ 1 ]
An important case was Sidek bin Haji Mohamad & 461 Ors v The Government of Malaysia (1982, 1 MLJ 313), which confirmed squatters have no right in law. [4] [5] Occupation of state-owned land is a crime punishable by a fine of up to RM10,000 or 1 year in prison, or both. [5] Adverse possession is not recognised in Malaysia. [5]