Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. LAND LAW: Sale and purchase of property - Sale and purchase agreement - Specific performance - Appeal against - Essential ingredient of SPA was for appellant to obtain approval from State Authority to alienate property - Whether alienation of state land shall only take effect upon registration of registered document of title - National Land Code, s. PP lwn. CONTRACT: Guarantee - 'Principal debtor' Clause - Whether liability of 2nd defendant, as a principal debtor, was a primary liability - Whether cause of action against 2nd defendant arose immediately upon 1st defendant's default to pay - Whether plaintiff as lender ought to have pursued all remedies available against 1st and 2nd defendants simultaneously, contemporaneously or successively to recover monies lent as no Agreement to the contrary - Whether any requirement for a demand to be made on 2nd defendant pursuant to the Individual Letter of Guarantee.

Author:Gatilar Zugor
Country:Dominican Republic
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):8 March 2015
PDF File Size:4.12 Mb
ePub File Size:20.32 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Post a Comment. Ramai yang tertanya-tanya apakah maksud perbicaraan mengikut Aturan 14A yang akan dilalui bagi kes tuntutan Royalti Kelantan. Tujuan kewujudan Aturan 14A ini adalah jelas iaitu untuk mempercepatkan proses pelupusan kes pada peringkat Interlokutori lagi demi untuk menjimatkan masa dan kos Mahkamah. Di dalam kes tersebut, beliau menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa:.

Its purpose is to expedite the disposal of an action at interlocutory stage in order to save costs and time. It was adopted from the English equivalent with some modifications. Our O 14A reads:. The principles enunciated in that case on the application and scope of the rule was approved and followed by our own Court of Appeal in Petroleum Nasional Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [] 1 MLJ 8.

In the Petroleum Nasional Bhd's case, the Court of Appeal also referred to a number of Singapore cases which also applied the principles on O 14A as enunciated in the Korso Finance's case, and said that it was inclined to follow those decisions in its interpretation of the scope of O 14A of the RHC.

If I understand the Petroleum Nasional Bhd's case, correctly, the Court of Appeal held that when faced with an application under O 14A, the court must decide what is the threshold issues in the case that require determination; and if the threshold issues are capable of being determined under the rule its determination would be and should be decisive of the whole litigation or essentially the main part of the suit.

That it said would result in a substantial saving of time and costs as it would significantly cut down the costs and time involved in pre-trial preparation or in connection with the trial proper. It was held in that case that 'even if the case appeared to or was complicated, it did not mean that the court must shun away from considering the applicability of O 14A and O 33 r 2 of the RHC in relation to the questions of law which were clear and definite'.

But applications of this kind are fought on ground of a Plaintiff's choosing, since he may be generally assumed to plead his best case But if, after argument, the court can be properly persuaded that no matter what within the reasonable bounds of the pleading the actual facts [are] the claim is bound to fail for want of a cause of action, I see no reason why the parties should be required to prolong the proceedings before that decision is reached.

Berdasarkan kepada Aturan 14A tersebut, ianya jelas menunjukkan bahawa Penggunaan 14A tersebut adalah bertujuan untuk penyelesaian penuh bagi sesuatu kes tersebut jika kes tersebut dapat diselesaikan dan diputuskan hanya berdasarkan kepada intepretasi sesuatu undang-undang atau kontruksi sesuatu dokumen yang tidak memerlukan kepada bukti-bukti lain extrinsic evidences dan juga bukti secara lisan oral evidence.

Ini bermaksud secara ringkasnya ialah, tiada saksi akan dipanggil untuk memberikan keterangan lisan bagi tujuan perbicaraan kes tersebut. Namun begitu, sebelum Mahkamah menggunapakai Aturan 14A tersebut untuk tujuan Pelupusan sesuatu kes, terdapat garis panduan yang perlu diikuti yang mana garis panduan tersebut telah diputuskan oleh kes-kes duluan precedent.

Antara asas penting yang menjadi syarat utama sebelum Mahkamah boleh mengguna pakai Aturan 14A di dalam menyelesaikan sesuatu kes ialah kedua-dua pihak tidak mempunyai sebarang pertikaian berhubung fakta kes, atau di mana mahkamah, setelah meneliti pliding, memutuskan bahawa fakta-fakta penting tidak dipertikaikan.

Makanya, suatu Permohonan di bawah A 14A ini adalah untuk memutuskan peruntukan undang-undang yang jelas atau interpretasi kepada sesebuah konstruksi dokumen yang tiada pertikaian lain selain kandungan dokumen tersebut. The court should not give a ruling under O 14A in vacuo or based on hypothetical facts which can only be determined at full trial. These factual allegations in the amended statement of claim are vehemently denied by the defendants. Order 14A procedure cannot be invoked on the basis of assumed facts as what has been done by the learned judicial commissioner.

The learned judicial commissioner should not have made a determination under O 14A based on assumed or hypothetical facts;. The learned judicial commissioner in his grounds of judgment accepted this principle. There will be no such saving as the same evidence will be led with respect to the remaining causes of action; and. The other causes of action are the claims for collateral purposes and for conspiracy. Both these claims are still good and would entail leading at trial, the same evidence showing the breaches of the Code and the Act, even if the determination of the O 14A is in favour of the respondent.

Beliau menyatakan bahawa:. An application under O 14A of the RHC is to decide clear points of law or construction that are apparent on the pleadings. Instead, the learned judicial commissioner thought it fit to choose to only confine himself to the averments made by the plaintiff in its statement of claim.

With the benefit of hindsight it is possible to see that this is where things began to go wrong. In fact the particulars would not be relevant to the O 14A application either so far as the plaintiffs were concerned or so far as the defendants were concerned.

The issue of law, if it was discernible at all, had to be discernible from the statement of claim and the defence. All parties concerned must make every effort to come to an agreement on all the necessary and material facts relevant to the question of law or construction of documents that the court is required to determine.

In an application under O 14A there is no room for any dispute between the parties as to the requisite material facts. The important point to note here is that in the present case all the necessary and material facts relating to the subject matter of the question had not been duly proved or admitted by the parties concerned.

Secara peribadi saya tidaklah berpendapat bahawa kes tuntutan royalti Kelantan boleh diputuskan melalui cara ini kerana terdapat saksi-saksi yang boleh didengar oleh mahkamah untuk menentukan niat pihak-pihak ketika perjanjian tersebut ditandatangani.

Apatah lagi individu-individu berkenaan masih hidup hingga ke hari ini kecuali Al-Marhum MB Kelantan semasa itu yang telah meninggal dunia. Akan tetapi Mahkamah telahpun membuat keputusannya dan wajarlah pihak-pihak menghormati pendirian mahkamah tersebut dan meneruskan perjuangan tuntutan royalti ini mengikut saluran perundangan yang masih ada. Hisham bin Fauzi.

Posted by Mohd. Labels: Artikel , Undang-Undang. No comments:. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom.


Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994 & Rules Of The Court Of Appeal 1994 : hingga 15hb Ogos 2012

Faura Click on the link above for the pricing schedule and more details. By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policycookie policy and terms of service. We will fight this case all the way to the Federal Court if necessary. Actually it is 8 weeks from filing of Notis Rayuan Notice of Kadah-kaedahnot 8 weeks from decision date. Hi kunta kinti, Court of Appeals, Putrajaya may send you a letter soon which may sound like the sample below: Notis Rayuan asal telah diposkan kepada pihak tuan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Alor Setar melalui surat bertarikh 6 Julai Below are mqhkamah format of Notis Rayuan used. Sorry, but Javascript is not enabled in your browser!


Rules of The Court of Appeal 1994 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994

Numerous and frequently-updated resource results are available from this WorldCat. Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Finding libraries that hold this item You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.


Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Rayuan 1994 (Bilingual)


Related Articles