1.

CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION

Federal Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court are all parts of the Superior Court.

Malaysia's courts, particularly the Federal Court and the High Courts, have the power to interpret

and apply the Federal Constitution of Malaysia's provisions. This power is known as

constitutional jurisdiction. The courts are empowered to hear and rule on cases involving

constitutional issues, such as disagreements over the meaning and applicability of laws, the

constitutionality of governmental activities, and the defence of fundamental rights.

Furthermore, protecting individual rights, defending constitutional values, and providing

a system of checks and balances within the government are all important functions of

constitutional jurisdiction in Malaysia. In doing way, it contributes to the nation's general

stability and democratic operation by providing a process for resolving conflicts and defining the

intent and scope of constitutional provisions. In addition, due to this jurisdiction, the courts are

able to uphold the rule of law, protect the constitutional order, and give people and organisations

a way to seek redress when their constitutional rights have been violated.

1.1 FEDERAL COURT

The Federal Court is the head of the judiciary also known as the highest court in the

nation and was formed by Federal Constitutional Article 121(2), which is crucial in interpreting

the constitution, settling constitutional conflicts, and defending the basic principles supported by

the legislation. The Federal Court has the authority to interpret the constitution and decide

whether it is valid, as stated clearly in Article 4(3) of the Federal Constitution. This includes the

power to assess the constitutionality of executive branch decisions and legislation passed by the

Parliament. The Federal Court has the authority of judicial review, which enables it to examine
whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. On the other hand, the High Courts have

the original authority to hear constitutional cases in the first instance.

According to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Comission (2014), online version of updated

reprint's text, the Federal Court consists of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of

Appeal, the two Chief Judges of the two High Courts, and seven other judges, as outlined in

Article 122(1) of the Federal Constitution, until the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by order otherwise

stipulates, comprising eleven other judges and such further judges as may be appointed in

accordance with Clause. In cases when the Chief Justice determines that the interests of justice

thus warrant it, a judge of the Court of Appeal other than the President of the Court of Appeal

may serve as a judge of the Federal Court. The judge shall be nominated for the position as

occasion demands by the Chief Justice.

Government of Malaysia v. Government of the State of Kelantan [1968] 1 MLJ 129

serves as an illustration of a case that was litigated in Federal Court. According to Article 130 of

the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong referred to the Federal Court some

questions in this case pertaining to specific financial provisions in the Federal Constitution. The

Federal Court's ruling was evaluated in light of whether or not the Federal Constitution's Articles

11(2) and 97(2) had been broken. Certain conditions in a contract between Timbermine

Industrial Corporation Limited and the State Government of Kelantan were broken and violated.

For the purpose of operating mines in Kelantan, the firm was granted authorization to collect

timber, logs, and other forest products. Furthermore, authority to construct factories was granted

to the corporation. The Federal Court responded that no violation of the Federal Constitution's

provisions had occurred.

1.2 THE COURT OF APPEAL

The Court of Appeal is the tribunal that comes after the Federal Court. The Federal

Constitution's Article 121(1B) established it, and it consists of the President of the Court of

Appeal and up to ten Court of Appeal judges. The Court of Appeal, which is Malaysia's second-

highest court, has only one jurisdictional power, known as appellate power.

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and decide any criminal appeals against any

judgement rendered by the High Court, according to Section 50(1) of Act 91, which governs

appellate jurisdiction for criminal appeals. According to Section 50(2) of Act 91, the Court of

Appeal also has jurisdiction to hear and decide any criminal appeals against decisions made by

the High Court in the course of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal

matter decided by a Magistrates' Court. However, such appeal shall be limited to only legal

issues that have arisen during the course of the appeal or revision, and whose resolution by the

High Court is the subject of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal shall have authority to hear and decide appeals from any verdict or

order of any High Court in any civil cause or matter, whether rendered in the exercise of its

original or of its appellate jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 67(1) of Act 91. In circumstances

where the quantity or value of the claim's subject-matter is at least 250k ringgit, the Court of

Appeal also has the authority to hear and decide civil appeals in general. When the Court of

Appeal has heard an appeal and rendered a decision, it lacks the authority to reopen the case,

hold another hearing, or reconsider the judgement for any reason. The Supreme Court outlined

this idea in Lye Thai Sang & Anor v. Faber Merlin (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 166.
 However, based on Section 68(1) of Act 91, no appeal may be made to the Court of

Appeal when the amount or value of the claim's subject matter is less than RM250,000, when the

judgement or order was made with the parties' consent, when the judgement or order only related

to costs, or when the High Court's decision or order was expressly declared to be final.

1.3 THE HIGH COURT

The Federal Constitution's, which creates the High Court, designates two High Courts

with complementary jurisdiction and status, which is the High Court in Malaya for the states of

Peninsular Malaysia, presided over by the Chief Judge of Malaya, and the High Court of Sabah

and Sarawak, presided over by the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak. The High Court has three

different kinds of jurisdiction, including original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, revisionary

jurisdiction, and supervisory jurisdiction. It has covered criminal and civil matters in the course

of exercising its original authority. The High Court hears civil cases that cannot be resolved in

the lower courts. Every civil case that involves a claim that the defendant owns the land on

which the dispute is based, a claim that the cause of action arose within Malaysia, a claim that

the defendant resides or conducts business within Malaysia, a claim that the facts supporting the

claim exist within Malaysia or are alleged to have occurred there, or a claim that any land with a

claim to ownership that is disputed is located within Malaysia may be tried by the High Court.

The High Court's civil jurisdiction extends to, among other things, proceedings involving

bankruptcy or winding up, probates, and the administration of decedents' estates. The High Court

has limitless civil jurisdiction and can try any civil matter when exercising its original

jurisdiction, according to Section 23(1) of Act 91. However, in practice, it only deals with cases

that subordinate courts cannot handle and typically considers claims that are worth more than

RM 1 million.
 Any criminal matter must first go through a preliminary hearing in a Magistrates' Court

before it can be taken before the High Court to ensure that the offender has been properly

committed for trial. Section 22(1) of Act 91 stipulates that the High Court may try any criminal

cases and impose any sentence permitted by law when exercising its original jurisdiction. The

High Court, however, typically restricts itself to hearing cases involving crimes for which the

Magistrates and Sessions Courts lack jurisdiction, such as those involving the death penalty. On

the application of the Public Prosecutor, cases not involving the death penalty may be considered

before the High Court under exceptional circumstances. There are some civil procedures under

the special jurisdiction that can only be heard by the High Court in the course of the exercise of

its original jurisdiction, and it makes no difference whether the amount sought is more than or

less than RM 250,000.00. As specified in Section 24 (1) of Act 91, the High Court has special

jurisdiction over matters relating to divorce and matrimonial causes, admiralty, bankruptcy, or

company winding up, the appointment and supervision of guardians for infants and control over

their person and property, and the appointment and supervision of guardians and keepers of the

person and estates of idiots and mentally ill people.

The case of Nafsiah v. Abdul Majid [1969] 2 MLJ 174 is an illustration of a High Court

case. According to the plaintiff, the defendant gave her a written promise that he would marry

her. The defendant questioned whether the High Court had the authority to hear the case and

cited section 40(3)(b) of the Administration of Muslim Law Enactment of 1959 of the state of

Melaka, which granted the Court of the Kadhi Besar jurisdiction to hear any actions in which all

parties profess the Muslim faith and which relate to marriage. Additionally, the High Court hears

every appeal from the lower courts, the Magistrates' and Sessions Courts, in the course of

exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Regarding civil appeals, Section 28(1) of Act 91 states that,
unless there is a legal issue, no appeal may be made from a subordinate court's ruling in any civil

cause or case where the amount in controversy or the value of the subject-matter is RM10,000 or

less. Section 28(2), however, stipulates that decisions made by a lower court in litigation

involving maintenance of wives or children are exempt from this monetary cap.

To summarize, Section 31 of Act 91 gives the High Court the authority to review

criminal proceedings in lower courts, while S.32 gives it the authority to request and review the

record of any civil proceedings before any lower court to determine whether any decisions made

or recorded were correct, legal, or appropriate, as well as whether any proceedings before any

such lower court were conducted in accordance with law.

References

Constitution, F. (2006). Laws of Malaysia. Reprint Federal Constitution Incorporating All

Amendments Up To, 1. Federal Constitution (jac.gov.my)

Majid, M. K., & Rashid, T. A. (1995). The courts in Malaysia and their
jurisdiction. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 21(1), 297-314.

MCGILL, D. (2012). Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79: state law in federal jurisdiction. Journal Of
Civil Litigation And Practice, 1(3), 131-140.