Badiaddin bin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd, the appellant contested to

judgment made by Court of Appeal in which one of the judges sitting was functions official. The court
held that even courts of unlimited jurisdiction have no authority to act in contravention of written
law. So long as an order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction stands, irregular though it may be, it must
be respected. But where an order of such a court made in breach of statue, it is made without
jurisdiction and may therefore be declared void and set aside in proceedings brought for that
purpose. It is then entirely open to the court, upon the illegality being clearly shown to grant a
declaration to the effect that the order is invalid and to have it set aside.

O 15 ROC 2012

SUBJECT MATTER

S23 (1) of Courts Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”) states that the High Court, subject to the limitations
contained in Art 128 of Federal Constitution, shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where
the cause of action arose, the defendant or one of several defendants resides or has his place of
business; the facts on which the proceedings are based exist or are alleged to have occurred; or any
land the ownership of which is disputed is situated, where all parties consent in writing.

S59(2) Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (SCA) states that Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction to hear
and determine any civil or criminal cause or matter arising within the local limits of jurisdiction.

S65(1)(a) of SCA states that Sessions Court has unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a
civil nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress.

S65(1)(b) of SCA states that Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try all other actions and suits of a
civil nature where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter does not exceed one
million ringgit.

S65 (3) of SCA states that when the dispute matter did not exceed the jurisdiction limit, but may
exceed, with the written agreement among the parties, the Sessions Court can try such action.

S69 of SCA states that

S70 of SCA states that

S71 of SCA states that if the dispute is about title to immovable property or ownership, Sessions
Court may adjudicate thereon subject to parties’ consent or it should be applied to High Court for
transfer.

S72 of SCA states that Sessions Court shall have jurisdiction to issue writs or warrants of distress for
rent.

S93 of SCA states that

Hiew Kim Swee v G.C. Gomez, the issue is whether the Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction to hear the
matter involving bona fide of title. The court held that S90 states that the limitation for a First Class
Magistrate which was shall have jurisdiction to try all actions and suits where the value does not
exceed RM1000. S69 in application to S93 states that Magistrates’ Court shall have no jurisdictionin
proceedings relating to immovable propertyexcept as provided in S70, which states that Magistrates’
Court shall not be exercised its jurisdiction if there is a bona fide question of title involved.
Therefore, Magistrates’ Court has no jurisdiction and the proceeding is a nullity.
Wawasan Cempaka Sdn Bhd v Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad, the issue is whether Sessions Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to SCA to order delivery of vacant possession in respect of immovable property
where there is no dispute as to ownership or title. The court held that S70 is a specific and expressed
exception to S69which excludes the jurisdiction of Sessions Court in actions relating to immovable
property. Thus it is clear that the Sessions Court is caught within the jurisdiction to order delivery of
VP of immovable property irrespective of the value of the claim unless there is a bona fide question
of title involved.

BNM v G. Glesphy

S76(2) of SCA states that a Magistrates' Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil
or criminal cause or matter arising within the local limits of jurisdiction assigned to it under this
section.

LOCAL OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

S3 of CJA states that local jurisdiction of High Court in Malaya includes all States of Malaya and of
High Court in Sabah and Sarawak includes territory comprised in the States of Sabah, Sarawak and
the Federal Territory of Labuan.

S59(1) of SCA states that local limits of jurisdiction of Sessions Courts should be assigned by the
YDPA.

S76 (1) of SCA states that local limits of jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Courts should be assigned by the
YDPA.

S2 of SCA states that local jurisdiction of High Court in Malaya includes all States of Malaya and of
High Court in Sabah and Sarawak includes territory comprised in the States of Sabah, Sarawak and
the Federal Territory of Labuan.

PECUNIARY / MONETARY JURISDICTION

S65 (1) (b) of SCA states that Sessions Court shall have unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and
suits of civil nature in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress, subject
matter does not exceed one million ringgit and for the specific performance or rescission of
contracts or for cancellation or rectification of instruments.

S65 (3) of SCA states that when the dispute matter did not exceed the jurisdiction limit, but may
exceed, with the written agreement among the parties, the Sessions Court can try such action.

S65 (4) of SCA states that every such agreement shall be filed in the Sessions Court and when it is
filed, the parties to it shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

S65 (5) of SCA states that Sessions Court may, in any action within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, in any proceedings before it grant and injunction or make declaration.

New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors v Hazahar Idris, the issue is whether the Sessons Court
has jurisdiction to award damages in excess of damages awarded against 4 defendants in a single
action. The court allowed, ruling that Sessions Court has such jurisdiction to award maximum
amount of RM250,000 in respect of a tortfeasor. The court in a single action like in the present case
cannot award in respect of the 4 appellants a total sum exceeding the limit of RM250,000.
Therefore, the award of separate sums of general damages for the total sum of RM640,000 was
erroneous and could not be allowed to stand.
Foo Sey Koh v Chua Seng Seng & Ors, the issue is whether a subordinate court may entertain a claim
where the principal amount suit is within the jurisdiction but the interest claim would result in a
cumulative figure which is excess of its monetary jurisdiction. The court held that it is purely
discretionary to expect a plaintiff to be able to compute what the interest is going to be and thereby
to determine in which court he shall file his action could not been the intention of the law.

S90 of SCA states that First Class Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to try cases where the subject
matter does not exceed RM100,000.00

S92 of SCA states that Second Class Magistrate shall only have jurisdiction to try cases where the
plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant not
exceeding RM10,000.

Subramaniam Para Masivam v Malayan Finance Bhd, there was a counterclaim value limit of
Sessions Court’s jurisdiction hence there is an application to transfer case to High Court. The court
held that a party should make an application to transfer a Sessions Court case to the High Court by
reason of value limit only after the avenue to have the matter tried before the Sessions Court, as
provided for under subsections (3) and (4) of section 65, has been diligently explored.

Time Online Dotcom Bhd v Bates (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

S23 of CJA states that High Court shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where — (a) the
cause of action arose; (b) the defendant or one of several defendants resides or has his place of
business; (c) the facts on which the proceedings are based exist or are alleged to have occurred; or
(d) any land the ownership of which is disputed is situated, within the local jurisdiction of the Court
and notwithstanding anything contained in this section in any case where all parties consent in
writing within the local jurisdiction of the other High Court.

S23(2) of CJA states that High Court have such jurisdiction as was vested in it immediately prior to
Malaysia Day and such other jurisdiction as may be vested in it by any written law in force within its
local jurisdiction.

Sova Sdn Bhd v Kasih Sayang Realty Sdn Bhd, there is an objection that the court dos not have
jurisdiction to determine dispute between parties or alternatively that this court is not suitable or
convenient forum to determine dispute between the parties. The cause of action accrued in Penang,
while both parties lived in KL. The plaintiff instituted the case in the High Court of Alor Setar and the
defendant applied to strike out the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the High Court of
Alor Setar is but another branch of the High Court of Malaya, it has concurrent jurisdiction and thus,
has jurisdiction to hear the case. However, it was not the proper or convenient forum to determine
the dispute between the parties.

Syarikat Nip Kui Cheong Timber Contractor v Safety and General Insurance

Lam Kok Trading v Yorkshire Switchgear, the defendant was incorporated in England and had a
registered office in England and had not at any time established a place of business in Malaysia. A
contract between the parties was made outside Malaysia, the breach of which also occurred outside
Malaysia. The court held that Malaysian court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and the
application to set aside the proceedings must be allowed.

BBMB v ITC (application of section 23(1)(b)

BBMB v Melewar Holdings Sdn Bhd, the cause of action happened in Kuala Pilah and the subject
matter was in Kuala Pilah. Despite the several defendants residing in KL and that it would be more
convenient to transfer the case to KL, the court rejected their application.

Mee Ying etc v Che Jah bte Abdullah

PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun

S99A of SCA states that every Sessions Court and Magistrates’ Court shall have the further powers
and jurisdiction set out in the Third Schedule.

Yap Thaim Choy v Syarikat Pembenaan Fajar Baru (Rembau) Sdn Bhd,

Goodness for Import and Export v Phillip Morris Brands Sarl

Hap Seng Plantations (River Estates) Sdn Bhd v Excess Interpoint Sdn Bhd,

S24 of CJA states that High Court has specific jurisdiction over (a) divorce and matrimonial causes,
(b) same jurisdiction and authority in admiralty matters, (c) bankruptcy or companies, (d)
appointment and control of guardians of infants and over the person and property of infants, (e)
appointment and control of guardians and keepers of estates of idiots, mentally disordered persons
and persons of unsound mind, and (f) to grant probates of wills and testaments and letters of
administration of the estates of deceased person.

Distillers Biochemicals v Thompson - explained “where cause of action arose”

Malayan Banking Bhd v International Tin Council

Ying Enterprise Jewellers (suing as a firm) v Che Jah bte Abdullah

Kok Trading Co (Pte) Ltd & Anor v Yorkshire Switchgear & Engineering Co Ltd

CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE

ELF Petroleum SE Asia Pte Ltd v Winelf Petroleum Sdn Bhd, the parties having agreed for Singapore
law to apply in the event of a dispute. The court held that a choice of law clause does not oust the
jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts to try any action arising out of the agreement.

American Express International Banking Corp v Tan Loon Swan, a choice of law clause in the
facilities agreement provided for the rights of the parties to be governed by Singapore law. The court
held that the respondent had entered appearance, filed his defence, and amended and re-amended
his defence, the respondent had clearly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts. The
court also found no reason why a court of the respondent’s residential country is not the forum
conveniens. Thus, the choice of law clause in this instance could not oust the jurisdiction of the
court.