The civil courts have consistently recognised that the superior civil courts (namely the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court) are creatures of statute.
On the High Court being a creature of statute, the Federal Court in Gan Boon Aun v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 MLJ 265 held the following:
“It is our considered view that the High Court, being a creature of statute, has no power to enlarge its jurisdiction under ss 30(2) and 84(1) of the CJA.”[1] (Emphasis mine)
As for the Court of Appeal being a creature of statute, this was acknowledged by the Federal Court in Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 3 MLJ 173:
“Being a creature of statute, the Court of Appeal has no power to enlarge its jurisdiction.”[2] (Emphasis mine)
The Federal Courts have accepted that even they are creatures of statute.
In Auto Dunia Sdn Bhd v Wong Sai Fatt & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 549, Edgar Joseph Jr FCJ was of the following view:
“It is an elementary proposition that this court is a creature of statute and that equally a right of appeal is also a creature of statute, so that unless an aggrieved party can bring himself within the terms of a statutory provision enabling him to appeal, no appeal lies.”[3] (Emphasis mine)
Similarly, the Federal Court in Megat Najmuddin bin Dato Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v Bank Bumiputera (M) Bhd [2002] 1 MLJ 385 held as follows:
“The view expressed by his Lordship is but a mere reflection of the intention of Parliament. The Federal Court is a creature of statute. So is the right of appeal. This means that unless an aggrieved party can bring himself within the parameters of s 96(a) of the CJA, no appeal lies.”[4] (Emphasis mine)
In Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101, the Federal Court clarified that “statutes” included the Federal Constitution:
“The point to note here is that both courts, civil and shariah, are creatures of statutes. Both owe their existence to statutes, the Federal Constitution, the Acts of Parliament and the State Enactments. Both get their jurisdictions from statutes ie Constitution, federal law or state law, as the case may be.”[5] (Emphasis ours)
The very existence and constitution of the superior civil courts are established by virtue of Part IX of the Federal Constitution.[6]
Notably, certain aspects of the jurisdictions of the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are explicitly provided for in the Federal Constitution.[7]
Notwithstanding that, the Federal Constitution provides that the following are “as may be conferred by or under federal law” or “as may be provided by federal law”:
(a) The jurisdiction and powers of the High Court;[8]
(b) The other (read: additional/further) jurisdiction(s) of the Court of Appeal;[9] and
(c) The other (read: additional/further) jurisdiction(s) of the Federal Court.[10]
The Courts of Judicature Act 1964, an ordinary statute, is one such federal law.
[1] Gan Boon Aun v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 MLJ 265 (FC), at para 28
[2] Dr Koay Cheng Boon v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia [2012] 3 MLJ 173 (FC), at para 52
[3] Auto Dunia Sdn Bhd v Wong Sai Fatt & Ors [1995] 2 MLJ 549 (FC), at p. 553
[4] Megat Najmuddin bin Dato Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v Bank Bumiputera (M) Bhd [2002] 1 MLJ 385 (FC), at p. 400
[5] Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati bte Sharibun & Anor [2007] 5 MLJ 101 (FC), at para 45
[6] See Articles 121, 122, 122A, 122AA of the Federal Constitution specifically
[7] Articles 121(1B)(a), 121(2)(a), 121(2)(b), 128, 130 of the Federal Constitution
[8] Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution
[9] Article 121(1B)(b) of the Federal Constitution
[10] Articles 121(2)(c) and 128(3) of the Federal Constitution
Recent Comments