This is a rare case where the duties of a works secretary are determined, to whom these obligations are due and whether there has been a breach. Loh had been arrested by the Royal Malaysian Police under an arrest warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Act 1933 (RRE). Article 5(4) of the Constitution states that any person arrested “shall be brought before a judge and may not continue to be detained without the authorization of the judge” – guaranteeing the right to habeas corpus. Loh was denied this right and sued the police for damages. However, his application was rejected on the grounds that the police had complied with an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority. Loh appealed to the Federal Court, which heard his appeal four years after the original case. [1] Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187 is a case decided by the Federal Court of Malaysia concerning the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the extent to which Parliament may amend the Constitution. The decision was made by Federal Judge Raja Azlan Shah. In that case, Judge Richard Malanjum affirmed that, notwithstanding article 121 of the Federal Constitution, the judicial power of the judiciary remains intact in the Constitution; that the jurisdiction and powers of the courts cannot be limited to federal law; and that the doctrines of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary are fundamental features of our Constitution. Use this guide to find out where to find common law decisions, judgments or case law online from reliable databases and websites on the free Internet, such as those of the Legal Information Institute. In the present case, the dismissal of the administrator was carried out in accordance with the procedure and the specific requirements laid down in the statutes of the subsidiaries. The Constitution simply requires impeachment either by special decree or by ordinary decision.

There was no constitutional requirement for a special opinion. It was therefore an appropriate dismissal under the Constitution and not a dismissal of a director under section 206. The trial judges had ruled in both cases that the presumption that they possessed the drugs and that they were aware of them (under Article 37 of the DDA) applied because their custody and control of the drugs had been established, and that the presumption that they were trading in drugs (under Article 37 da of the DDA) also applied because the weight of the drug had exceeded the weight indicated in the DDA. The article 206 mechanism consists of a few parts. In the case of a private company, which is the case, a director of a private company may be dismissed by ordinary decision, subject to the Constitution. Next, a specific reference to the decision to dismiss a director “in accordance with this section” is required. Therefore, the specific notification obligation is only necessary if the dismissal of the Director took place under the Article 206 mechanism. Hishamudin said Malanjum told the judges that they had “a judicial duty to render dissenting or separate judgments if, when deciding a case, the judges firmly believe that they do not agree with the majority decision; instead of agreeing with the majority simply for reasons of convenience or expediency. What was at issue in this case: In January 2009, the Minister of the Interior banned the internal Herald of the Catholic Church from using the Arabic word for God, “Allah,” in its Bahasa Malaysia section. The case has been criticized by legal scholars who have argued that it effectively gives the government a free hand to pass unconstitutional laws. Part of Raja Azlan Shah`s decision, which stated that “the individual has certain fundamental rights in which even the authority of the state cannot intervene”, was criticised for having “little substance” in the face of certain laws such as the RRE and the Internal Security Act (ISA) that would interfere with human rights. This part of Loh has been described as “more legal rhetoric.” [5] Varughese also told the Malay Mail that another landmark Malanjum decision was the Federal Court`s April 5, 2019 decision in two drug trafficking cases in which the dual presumption of guilt of the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) was declared unconstitutional for violating sections 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution.

This guide is intended for students and researchers studying common law jurisprudence or the Anglo-American legal tradition at Oxford University, although students and researchers from all fields may find it useful. What was at issue in this case: A woman named Lina Joy, who had renounced Islam and embraced Christianity, requested that the word “Islam” be removed from her identity card. The National Registration Department (NRD) rejected her request, insisting that she produce a certificate of apostasy issued by the Sharia court. Knowing in which country the case was heard is not always as easy/obvious as you might assume with English as a common language! Fortunately, jurisdiction is included in the search results screen in the Cardiff Index to Legal Abbreviations – so if you don`t know/aren`t sure, you can type in the abbreviation of your quote to see possible jurisdictions. What it was: Koh was a child accused of intentionally killing his teacher`s daughter and was convicted of murder. The case went through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and even the Federal Court, where the DRN`s position was upheld. What this case was about: The Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi had challenged the unilateral conversion of her three children born in civil marriage to Islam and won her case before the Court of Appeal overturned it. In Federal Court, Loh`s defence lawyer objected to the amendment and its retroactive effect on the grounds that it was not permissible to amend the constitution in such a way as to destroy its “basic structure”.