Home > Case Law Studies, Evidence Act 1950 (Malayan Law), Manner in which lack of competency may rise, S44 Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgement or Incompetency of Court May Be Rise > S 44 Evidence Act – Manner in which lack of competency may arise – Civil appeal – Contention on appeal that trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case – Defect in jurisdiction must appear on the face of the proceedings: RENGASAMY V ANNAMALAI [1956] 1 MLJ 46 FM CIVIL APPEAL NO 22 OF 1955 CA KL (Malaysia)

S 44 Evidence Act – Manner in which lack of competency may arise – Civil appeal – Contention on appeal that trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case – Defect in jurisdiction must appear on the face of the proceedings: RENGASAMY V ANNAMALAI [1956] 1 MLJ 46 FM CIVIL APPEAL NO 22 OF 1955 CA KL (Malaysia)

The Malayan Law Journal
RENGASAMY V ANNAMALAI
[1956] 1 MLJ 46
FM CIVIL APPEAL NO 22 OF 1955
CA KL
DECIDED-DATE-1: 21 OCTOBER 1955
MATHEW CJ, WHYATT CJ (S) AND WILSON J
CATCHWORDS:
Civil appeal – Contention on appeal that trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case – Defect in jurisdiction must appear on the face of the proceedings

HEADNOTES:
This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court ordering inter alia “that the defendant do return to the plaintiff the eating-shop … with all chattels and fittings as described in the agreement dated the 30th day of July, 1951.” At the appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that the agreement annexed to the plaint was a tenancy agreement and that the respondent should have applied to the Rent Control Board under s. 12 of the Control of Rent Ordinance 1948 for permission to the institution of the present suit and as the respondent had omitted to do so, the High Court had no jurisdiction. This point was not raised before the trial Court.

Held:
(1)   the appellant can only succeed on the jurisdiction issue if the defect
in jurisdiction was patent on the face of the proceedings;
(2)   in this case the defect in jurisdiction was not patent on the face of
the proceedings and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Cases referred to
Farquharson v Morgan (1894) 1 KB 552
Buggin v Bennett 4 Burr 2037

CIVIL APPEAL

HL Wrigglesworth for the appellant.

AK Sen for the respondent.

ACTION:

CIVIL APPEAL

LAWYERS: HL Wrigglesworth for the appellant.

AK Sen for the respondent.

JUDGMENTBY: MATHEW CJ

(with whom Whyatt C.J.(S.) and Wilson J. agreed):– This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court ordering inter alia:
“That the defendant do return to the plaintiff the eating-shop at No.
25 Camp Road, Port Swettenham, with all chattels and fittings as
described in the agreement dated the 30th day of July, 1951.”

Mr. Wrigglesworth for the appellant has contended that the agreement annexed to the plaint was a tenancy agreement, and that the respondent should have applied to the Rent Control Board under section 12  [*47] of the Rent Control Ordinance, 1948 for permission to the institution of the present suit and, having omitted to do so, the High Court was without jurisdiction. This point has been raised for the first time before us. The case proceeded in the Court below on the basis that the two points for decision were:–
(a)   was the agreement extended? and
(b)   did the plaintiff tender to the defendant the $ 1,000 due under
clause 7 of the agreement?

I can see no reason for disagreeing with the learned trial judge as to his findings on these two issues.

Mr. Wrigglesworth agreed that to succeed on his main ground of appeal it was necessary for him to satisfy this Court that the agreement annexed to the plaint must be capable of being construed as a landlord and tenant agreement without reference to the evidence which was recorded in the High Court. He has submitted that exclusive possession of the coffee-eating-house business premises flowed irresistably from the letting of the business and that there could not be a letting of the business without a letting of the premises. The agreement refers throughout to the letting of the business, and clause 3 deals with rent as follows:–
“The said renter shall on the first day of each and every month during
the continuance of this agreement without fail pay to the vendor the
said rent of $ 150 (dollars one hundred & fifty only) for the use of
the furniture and fittings as enumerated herein below and for the
conduct of the said business.”

Clause 4 allows the appellant to collect the rent from the upstairs sub-tenants of the respondent and to enjoy them for himself. In my view, it is unnecessary to decide this point one way or the other, and I will content myself with saying that it is doubtful whether the agreement can be construed in the sense that the appellant would have it.

The decisive point in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to benefit from the jurisdiction issue. I think the answer is to be found in Farquharson v Morgan (1894) 1 KB 552. The first part of the head-note reads:–
“Where total absence of jurisdiction appears on the face of the
proceedings in an inferior Court, the Court is bound to issue a
prohibition, although the applicant for the writ has consented to or
acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction by the inferior Court.”

A clear distinction is drawn in this case between patent and latent defects in jurisdiction. Lopes L.J. says (at p. 559):–
“The result of the authorities appears to me to be this: that the
granting of a prohibition is not an absolute right in every case where
an inferior tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, and that, where the
absence or excess of jurisdiction is not apparent on the face of the
proceedings, it is discretionary with the Court to decide whether the
party applying has not by laches or misconduct lost his right to the
writ to which, under other circumstances he would be entitled.”

In Davey L.J.’s judgment, he quotes from Lord Mansfield’s judgment in Buggin v Bennet 4 Burr 2037 the following passage (p. 562):–
“If it appears on the face of the proceedings that the Court below have
no jurisdiction, a prohibition may be issued at any time, either before
or after sentence; because all is a nullity; it is coram non
judice
. But where it does not appear on the face of the proceedings,
if the defendant will lie by and suffer that Court to go on under an
apparent jurisdiction, as upon a contract made at sea” (he was dealing
with an Admiralty case), “it would be unreasonable that this party who,
when defendant below, has thus lain by and concealed from the Court
below a collateral matter, should come hither after sentence against
him there and suggest that collateral matter as a cause of prohibition
and obtain a prohibition upon it after all this acquiescence in the
jurisdiction of the Court below.”

The learned Lord Justice continues:–
“The reason of the distinction between cases in which the excess of
jurisdiction appears on the face of the proceedings, and where it does
not so appear, is explained by Coleridge J. in Marsden v Wardle (3
E & B 695 at p 701). ‘There is reason’ says the learned Judge ‘for
refusing the writ after judgment in the Courts where the proceedings
set forth the detail of the matter, and the party has the opportunity
of moving before judgment. Then if he chooses to wait and take the
chance of judgment in his favour, he may be held incompetent to
complain of excess of jurisdiction if judgment is against him. There
is, however, good reason for departing from this principle where the
defect is apparent on the face of the proceedings below; because the
complaint in that case does not rest on the evidence of the
complainant; and, if such a defective record were allowed to remain and
to support a judgment, it might become a precedent: that which was in
truth an excess of jurisdiction might be considered to have been held
to be legal’.”

In this case the defect in jurisdiction is not patent on the face of the proceedings, and I would require far more extended argument than we enjoyed before I were satisfied that in fact there was any defect in jurisdiction.

I would dismiss the appeal with costs and order the deposit to be paid to the respondent’s solicitor.

Appeal dismissed.

SOLICITORS:
Solicitors: Sm Yong & Co; AK Sen

LOAD-DATE: June 3, 2003

  1. No comments yet.
  1. March 23, 2014 at 2:33 am
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWTOIadTEv4
  2. April 1, 2014 at 8:32 am
    seo website designers
  3. April 6, 2014 at 1:51 am
    posicionamiento en buscadores
  4. May 6, 2014 at 11:14 pm
    ford dealer.
  5. May 6, 2014 at 11:14 pm
    dog with arthritis
  6. May 7, 2014 at 12:34 am
    arthritis in dogs
  7. May 7, 2014 at 12:48 am
    alcoholism by forever recovery
  8. May 7, 2014 at 1:58 am
    forever recovery alcoholism treatment
  9. May 7, 2014 at 5:05 am
    forever recovery alcoholism detox
  10. May 7, 2014 at 6:54 am
    tecnicas seo
  11. May 7, 2014 at 10:18 am
    alcoholics
  12. May 7, 2014 at 10:22 am
    local search engine optimisation services
  13. May 7, 2014 at 11:25 am
    pricing
  14. May 7, 2014 at 11:26 am
    2014 ford escape
  15. May 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    utility
  16. May 7, 2014 at 3:45 pm
    alcohol
  17. May 7, 2014 at 4:27 pm
    addiction by forever recovery
  18. May 7, 2014 at 9:54 pm
    food addiction
  19. May 7, 2014 at 10:31 pm
    corey blake
  20. May 7, 2014 at 10:35 pm
    empresa seo
  21. May 7, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    serviciosdeseo.net/
  22. May 8, 2014 at 2:02 am
    no medical life insurance
  23. May 8, 2014 at 2:13 am
    home site pessoal
  24. May 8, 2014 at 11:58 am
    2013 ford edge
  25. May 8, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    dog arthritis medication
  26. May 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm
    19 seo companies fined for creating fake reviews
  27. May 8, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    free seo analysis
  28. May 8, 2014 at 3:58 pm
    digital marketing sydney
  29. May 8, 2014 at 5:23 pm
    Capital Gold Group bbb
  30. May 8, 2014 at 10:10 pm
    seo barcelona
  31. May 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm
    special offers
  32. May 9, 2014 at 3:43 am
    forever recovery alcoholism treatment
  33. May 9, 2014 at 3:49 am
    addiction by forever recovery
  34. May 9, 2014 at 7:59 am
    what is term life insurance
  35. May 9, 2014 at 9:39 am
    Rosland Capital bbb
  36. May 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    dog arthritis physical therapy
  37. May 9, 2014 at 2:33 pm
    » seo companies
  38. May 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm
    Rosland Capital ira
  39. May 9, 2014 at 7:10 pm
    a forever recovery
  40. May 9, 2014 at 7:34 pm
    http://perthseod.com/seo-perth-tips-how-to-turn-rankings-into-phone-calls/
  41. May 9, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    mobility
  42. May 10, 2014 at 12:40 am
    play with your dog again
  43. May 10, 2014 at 4:32 am
    dog vitamins arthritis for dogs
  44. May 10, 2014 at 6:43 am
    Lexi Capital gold ira specialist
  45. May 10, 2014 at 9:38 am
    posicionamiento web
  46. May 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    glucosamine chondroitin for dogs
  47. May 10, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    life insurance for diabetics
  48. May 10, 2014 at 8:13 pm
    website design
  49. May 11, 2014 at 5:42 am
    life insurance policies
  50. May 11, 2014 at 6:21 am
    alcoholism by forever recovery
  51. May 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    drugs and alcohol
  52. May 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    website design
  53. May 11, 2014 at 6:17 pm
    affordable seo services
  54. May 11, 2014 at 9:19 pm
    affordable seo
  55. May 11, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    website submission
  56. May 11, 2014 at 11:16 pm
    life insurance quotes
  57. May 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm
    seo
  58. May 12, 2014 at 4:24 am
    what is no exam life insurance
  59. May 12, 2014 at 11:02 am
    posicionamiento web en google en chile
  60. May 12, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    posicionamiento seo
  61. May 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm
    http://perthseod.com/services/
  62. May 12, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    buy website traffic
  63. May 12, 2014 at 10:05 pm
    blog seo
  64. May 13, 2014 at 12:26 am
    what is whole life insurance
  65. May 13, 2014 at 7:35 am
    serviciosdeseo.net/
  66. May 13, 2014 at 9:14 am
    sitio web profesional
  67. May 13, 2014 at 11:13 am
    perthseod.com
  68. May 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    seo barcelona
  69. May 13, 2014 at 2:04 pm
    4searchengineoptimization.com
  70. May 13, 2014 at 5:55 pm
    life insurance for seniors over 80
  71. May 13, 2014 at 6:21 pm
    diseo de paginas web
  72. May 14, 2014 at 1:49 am
    seo service company
  73. May 14, 2014 at 4:05 am
    posicionamiento seo barcelona
  74. May 14, 2014 at 10:52 pm
    why scientific research need expert seo services
  75. May 15, 2014 at 4:49 am
    Quirk VW
  76. May 15, 2014 at 9:11 am
    http://www.youtube.com/
  77. May 15, 2014 at 1:31 pm
    Ron Novin Quirk VW
  78. May 16, 2014 at 3:25 am
    Paul Jim Glover Chevrolet
  79. May 16, 2014 at 6:14 am
    http://www.youtube.com
  80. May 16, 2014 at 10:03 am
    Paul Jim Glover Chevrolet
  81. May 16, 2014 at 11:57 am
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_B2kSrrY0E
  82. May 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm
    Cerame Kia
  83. May 16, 2014 at 8:01 pm
    Paul Jim Glover Chevrolet
  84. May 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm
    labor lawyers san francisco
  85. May 24, 2014 at 2:34 am
    department of labor california
  86. May 24, 2014 at 11:30 am
    employee handbook
  87. July 11, 2014 at 7:32 am
    Heating and Cooling Tucson
  88. July 14, 2014 at 1:41 am
    heating
  89. July 18, 2014 at 9:04 am
    www.youtube.com/
  90. September 5, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    http://www.friendlybuilders.co.uk/Glazing/Windows-Llowes.html
  91. September 19, 2014 at 10:11 am
    Kitchen Warden
  92. October 30, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    Llyswen local conservatory
  93. November 14, 2014 at 9:19 am
    Try the best tablet PC and tablet PC with quad core CPU. 2LooK Android tablet.
  94. January 14, 2016 at 1:36 am
    bespoke conservatories in Ettington

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: