Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan & Another (2002) 4 CLJ 105 was a case heard in the Federal Court of Malaysia. Sugumar Balakrishnan sought the reinstatement of his entry permit to the state of Sabah.
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 ...
The Sagong Tasi case (Sagong bin Tasi & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, 2002) was a landmark land rights case in Malaysia, in which the courts ruled against the Selangor State in favour of the Temuan-Orang Asli (also known as Temuan) plaintiffs.
Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187 is a case decided in the Federal Court of Malaysia concerning the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and also involving the extent to which Parliament can amend the Constitution. The decision was delivered by Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah.
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) -Malaysia's top court on Friday declared unconstitutional more than a dozen Islamic laws enacted by the state of Kelantan, in a landmark decision that could affect similar ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The case concerned the allegedly wrongful dismissal of Tan Tek Seng, a senior assistant of a primary school. In ruling in his favour, the Court of Appeal held that Articles 5 and 8 of the Constitution , which protect personal liberty and equality under the law, must be read with a liberal and not literal approach. [ 1 ]