Keputusan Kehakiman

• Salah satu sumber undang-undang di Malaysia.

• Amnya, Parlimen buat undang-undang dan
Mahkamah mentafsirkannya. Namun dalam
sistem common law, hakim-hakim secara tidak
langsung membuat undang-undang.
• Dengan cara ?
i. Keputusan yang dibuat.
ii. Prinsip-prinsip yang digunakan.
iii. Penafsiran yang digunakan.
iv. Stare decisi atau doktrin duluan mengikat.
 Definisi ?
• Apabila adanya fakta-fakta material yang
sama, maka mahkamah hendaklah mengikuti
keputusan-keputusan terdahulu daripada
mahkamah yang lebih tinggi, keputusan
mahkamah sendiri atau keputusan mahkamah
yang setaraf – sama ada masa kini atau
terdahulu asalkan kedudukan mahkamah
dalam susunan yang sama.
Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Os v
Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd
[2008] MLJU 406 (COA)
The doctrine of stare decisis has been defined in many ways and giving rise to the same meaning. It
is a very interesting discourse. It has been defined, refined and explained:
(a) by Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, 1999 at page 1414 as:"The doctrine of precedent, under
which it is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again
in litigation". See PRECEDENT; NON QUIETA MOVERE. Cf. RES JUDICATA; LAW OF THE CASE.
'The rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds its expression in the doctrine of stare decisis.
This doctrine is simply that, when a point or principle of law has been once officially decided or
settled by the ruling of a competent court in a case in which it is directly and necessarily involved, it
will no longer be considered as open to examination or to a new ruling by the same tribunal, or by
those which are bound to follow its adjudications, unless it be for urgent reasons and in exceptional
cases.' William M. Lile et al., Brief Making and the Use of Law Books 321 (3d ed. 1914).
'The general orthodox interpretation of stare decisis ….. is stare rationibus decidendis ('keep to the
rationes decidendi of past cases'), but a narrower and more literal interpretation is sometimes
employed. To appreciate this narrower interpretation it is necessary to refer …. to Lord Halsbury's
assertion that a case is only authority for what it actually decides. We saw that situations can arise
in which all that is binding is the decision. According to Lord Reid, such a situation arises when the
ratio decidendi of a previous case is obscure, out of accord with authority or established principle,
or too broadly expressed'. Rupert Cross & J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law 100-01 (4th ed.
1991)'."
(b) by Saul Brenner & Harold J. Spaeth, on Stare Decisis, 1995, as promoting "efficiency of the court,
consistency in the law, fairness and legitimacy"; and
(c) by the case of Robertson v. Daimler Chrysler Corp, 641 N.W. 2d 567, 580 [Mich. 2002] which in
turn quoted the case of Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 251 [1998] as promoting "the even
handed, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial
decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process"
 Rasional ?
• Keadilan.
• Kepastian dalam undang-undang.
• Perkembangan undang-undang boleh berlaku secara teratur dan
lojik.
• Mengelak kekeliruan.
• Lord Gardiner L.C (1966) ada menyebut[1966] 1 WLR 1234 [1966] 2
MLJ xi;
Para hakim menganggap penggunaan duluan sebagai suatu asas
yang tidak boleh diabaikan untuk memutuskan apakah undang-
undang dan pemakaiannya dalam kes-kes tertentu. Duluan
memberi sekurang-kurangnya kepastian yang sekadarnya seseorang
itu boleh bersandar dalam menjalankan hak ehwalnya dan juga
sebagai suatu dasar bagi perkembangan kaedah-kaedah undang-
undang yang teratur.
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome & Anor [1972] 2 WLR 645
where Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebourne L.C. said at
page 653, E5-F6

The fact is, and I hope it will never be

necessary to say so again, that, in the
hierarchical system of courts which exists in
this country, it is necessary for each lower tier,
including the Court of Appeal, to accept
loyally the decisions of the higher tiers.
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd
[1975] 2 WLR 555, Lord Denning M.R

whether right or wrong, it seems to me that

once this court has given a decision upon it all
lower courts should follow the decision of this
court unless and until it is reversed by the
House of Lords. In that way any
embarrassment will be avoided
 Baron Parke in Mirehouse v Rennell 6
ER 1015
Our common-law system consists in the applying to new
combinations of circumstances those rules of law which we derive
from legal principles and judicial precedents; and for the sake of
attaining uniformity, consistency and certainty, we must apply those
rules, where they are not plainly unreasonable and inconvenient, to
all cases which arise; and we are not at liberty to reject them, and
to abandon all analogy to them, in those to which they have not yet
been judicially applied, because we think that the rules are not as
convenient and reasonable as we ourselves could have devised. It
appears to me to be of great importance to keep this principle of
decision steadily in view, not merely for the determination of the
particular case, but for the interests of law as a science.

• Diikuti oleh kes PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v DATUK TAN CHENG SWEE &
ANOR
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat
[2012] MLJU 60 (FC)
I would think that the attitude of this Court towards its previous
decisions such as Utra Badi and Vickneswary upon questions of law
should, in my opinion be the same. It is of supreme importance that
people may know with certainty what the law is, and this end can
only be attained by a loyal adherence to the doctrine of stare
decisis. Little respect will be paid to our judgments if we overthrow
that one day which we have resolved the day before. "We cannot
say that the law was one thing yesterday but is to be something
different tomorrow", per Lord Reid in West Midland Baptist (Trust)
Association Inc v Birmingham Corporation [1970] AC 874. The
instant appeal is no doubt an important case. Disciplinary
Authorities will be confused if we are to usurp their powers by
telling them you should order an oral hearing in one case while in
another you need not. They are the ones entrusted by the General
Orders to make that decision and it is not for the court to usurp that
function.
Asia General Equipment and Supplies Sdn Bhd &
Ors v Mohd Sari bin Datuk OKK Hj Nuar & Ors
[2012] 3 MLJ 49 (FC)

Di bawah doktrin stare decisis kecuali matriks

fakta amat berbeza, prinsip yang ditetapkan
sebagaimana diputuskan oleh mahkamah
atasan hendaklah diikuti. Kegagalan berbuat
demikian, sebagaimana dalam kes ini, akan
membentuk permohonan salah dari segi
undang-undang.
Asia General Equipment and Supplies Sdn Bhd and Ors
v Mohd Sari bin Datuk Okk Hj Nuar and Ors
[2011] MLJU 634

Here we like to reiterate that the doctrine of

stare decisis must be adhered to by a court or
courts below otherwise there will be
uncertainty in the law and this would cause
severe confusion.
 DATO' SHAZRYL ESKAY BIN ABDULLAH v MERONG
MAHAWANGSA SD BHD & DATO' YAHYA BIN A. JALIL
[2011] MLJU 486
The principle of stare decisis requires more
than lip service" (per Chang Min Tat FJ in PP v
Datuk Tan Cheng Siew & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ
276 at p.278. It has been said time and time
again that one of the important functions of
the doctrine of "stare decisis" 'is to maintain
at the maximum the feeling and appearance
of certainty and stability and to cherish the
value of certainty of the laws'.
 Keputusan mana yang mengikat ?

• Hanya yang menjadi asas keputusan iaittu ratio decidendi.

• Bukannya obiter dictum iaitu pendapat atau pernyataan
sampingan hakim yang membicarakan sesuatu kes
tersebut.
• BLUE VALLEY PLANTATION BERHAD v PERIASAMY A/L
KUPPANNAN & ORS [2011] MLJU 385
To answer a legal question not related to the facts of the
case on appeal would be an academic exercise. The answer
may also not be the ratio decidendi to the case and could
be argued as not amounting to a stare decisis. At most,
answering such questions could only be treated as an
obiter or as a guide.
 CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD (IN
RECEIVERSHIP) v FEYEN DEVELOPMENT SDN
BHD
[1997] 2 MLJ 829

Federal Court.
obiter dictum is a mere chance remark by the
court and is used in contradistinction to ratio
decidendi – the rule of law for which a case is
authority.
 JOAN FUNG @ JOAN FUNG NYUK LEE V ALLIANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
[2011] MLJU 668
The Defendants submitted that this Court is
stare decisis bound by the decision of the
Federal Court in Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak
Shell Berhad, supra. I shall now proceed to
examine the judgments of the Federal Court in
Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak Shell supra. In
determining whether this Court is bound, I will
have to determine the ratio decidendi of the
Federal Court in Chong Thian Fook v Sarawak
Shell supra.
 Jika ada ratio decidendi konflik ?
• Parlan bin Dadeh v Public Prosecutor [2008] 6 MLJ 19
FEDERAL COURT
The ratio decidendi of Toh Su Kuan is thus inconsistent with settled
legal principles. In particular it conflicts with the correct statement
of the law in the Court of Appeal case of Wong Nam Loi v Public
Prosecutor [1997] 3 MLJ 795 and the application of the principles in
the judgment of this court in Tunde Apatira. The Court of Appeal is
therefore justified in this case in disregarding Toh Su Kuan as the
rule of precedent allows it to choose which of its past conflicting
decisions it will follow. As a matter of fact the case ought not to be
followed as it cannot stand with the judgment of this court in Tunde
Apatira. In any event this court is not concerned with the judgment
in Toh Su Kuan as it is per incuriam. The submission advanced by
the appellant is therefore without any merit.
 Pemakaian ?
• Ada dua cara ;
i. Menegak – Mahkamah bawahan harus
mengikuti keputusan mahkamah atasan.
ii. Mendatar – Mengikut keputusannya
sendiri atau mahkamah yang sama taraf.
• Pemakaian doktrin ini di Malaysia adalah
diasakan kepada pemakaian doktrin ini di
United Kingdom.
 Pemakaian di UK ?
Hirarki Mahkamah di UK ?
House of Lord

Court of Appeal

High court Crown Ct

Magistret CT County CT
 House of Lord ?
• Sebelum 1966 – keputusan mengikat
mahkamah bawahan dan keputusan sendiri.
• Selepas 1966 – Lord Gardiner – Selepas dari
tarikh tersebut tidak akan mengikat dengan
keputusan mereka sendiri.
• Parktikalnya – Jarang melencong dari
keputusan mereka sendiri.
• Kes ?
Conway v. Rimmer & Anor [1968] AC 910.
 Court of Appeal
• Ada dua bahagian iaitu Sivil dan Jenayah.
• Sivil Divison ?
• Keputusan mengikat mahkamah bawahan.
• Terikat dengan keputusan House of Lord.
• Terikat dengan keputusannya sendiri.
• Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944] KN 718.
i. Boleh memilih dianttara dua keputusannya yang
bercanggah.
ii. Boleh menolak keputusan sendiri jika bercanggah
dengan keputusan HOL walaupaun keputusan
tersebut tidak ditolak sendiri oleh HOL.
iii. Jika keputusan itu dibuat secara per incuriam.
 Court of Appeal
Criminal Devision

• Terikat dengan keputusan HOL.

• Mengikat Mahkamah Bawahan.
• Tidak mengikat diri sendiri secara ketat.
• Kes ?
R v. Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368.
 Mahkamah Tinggi ?

• Terikat dengan keputusan HOL dan COA.

• Tidak terikat dengan keputusan Hakim
Mahkamah Tinggi yang lain.
• Praktikalnya akan mengikuti keputusan hakim
sejawatnya (judicial courtesy).
 Di Malaysia ?
• Hirarki mahkamah di Malaysia telah menjalani
perubahan beberapa kali.
• Dalam hal ini kita akan melihat hirarki
mahkamah di Malaysia dalam tiga keadaan
iaitu ;
i. Sebelum 1985.
ii. Di antara tahun 1985 – 1994.
iii. Selepas tahun 1994.
 Sebelum 1985 ?
YDPA
Jawatankuasa Kehakiman
Majlis Privy

Mahkamah Persekutuan

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Borneo

Mahkamah Sesyen Mahkamah Sesyen

Mahkamah Majistret Mahkamah Majistret

Mahkamah Penghulu
 1985 – 1994 ?
Mahkamah Agong

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Borneo

Mahkamah Sesyen Mahkamah Sesyen

Mahkamah Majistret Mahkamah Majistret

Mahkamah Penghulu
 POST 1994 ?
Mahkamah Persekutuan

Mahkamah Rayuan

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Mahkamah Tinggi Borneo

Mahkamah Sesyen Mahkamah Sesyen

hkamah Majistret Mahkamah Majistret

Mahkamah Penghulu
 Penyusunan Mahkamah 1994
• Akta Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Pindaan)
1994 (Akta A886) dan Akta Mahkamah
Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1995 (A909).
• Pindaan ini telah;
i. Menukar nama Mahkamah Agong kepada
Mahkamah Persekutuan.
ii. Menubuhkan Mahkamah Rayuan.
 Sebelum 1985 ?
• Majlis Privy merupakan mahkamah rayuan tertinggi.
• Mengikat semua mahkamah di Malaysia dalam kes-kes rayuan dari
Malaysia.
• Kes rayuan dari negara-negara lain yg in pari materia juga mengikat.
• Selepas 1985 hanya mempengaruhi.
• Kes rujukan:
i. Khalid Panjang & Ors v. PP [1964] 2 MLJ 108.
ii. Mirza Akhabar v. King Emperor, LR 67 IA 336.
iii. Read v. Bishop of Lincoln [1893] AC 644.
iv. Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan v. TWU [1996] 4 CLJ
687.
v. Majlis Pembandaran Pulau Pinang [1999] 3 CLJ 74.
Mahkamah Persekutuan sebelum 1984
• Terikat dengan keputusan Majlis Privy.
• Mengikat mahkamah bawahan.
• Terikat dengan keputusan sendiri (Sivil).
• Jenayah tidak terikat secara ketat.
• Kes rujukan:
i. Lee Hoo Boon [1966] 2 M.LJ. 167.
ii. Henry v. De Cruz [1949] NLJ supp. 25.
iii. Re Lee Gee Chong [1965] 1 M.LJ. 102.
iv. PP v. Joseph Chin Saiko [1972] 2 MLJ 129.
v. PP v. Ooi Khai Chin & Anor [1979] 1 MLJ 112.
vi. Oie Hee Koi [1966] 2 MLJ 183.
vii. Central Securities (Holdings) Bhd. [1980] 1 MLJ 304.
 Mahkamah Agong 1985 – 1994 ?
• 1 Jan. 1985 Mahkamah Persekutuan ditukar
kepada Mahkamah Agong.
• Adakah terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah
Persekutuan sebelumnya?
• Kes ?
i. Lorrain Esme Osman [1986] 2 MLJ 288 – Ya.
ii. Government of Malaysia & UEM v. Lim Kit
Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 – Tidak. [Lihat obiter
kes ini]
Mahkamah Persekutuan Post 1994
• Lihat pindaan berikut;
i. Seksyen 2 Akta Perlembagaan (Pindaan) 1994.
ii. Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1994 iaitu seksyen 5(c) telah
meminda seksyen 8 dengan menggantikan perkataan ‘Supreme’ kepada
‘Federal’.
iii. Seksyen 17 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (Pindaan) 1995
Apa-apa prosiding yang belum selesai dihadapan Mahkamah Agong pada
23hb Jun 1994 hendaklah disambung atau diteruskan, mengikut mana-
mana yang berkenaan, di hadapan Mahkamah Persekutuan dan bagi
maksud ini Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah mempunyai dan
menjalankan semua kuasa Mahkamah Agong sebelum 24hb Jun1994.
– Kes ?
i. Tan Boon Kean v. PP [1995] 3 MLJ 514.
ii. Malaysian National Insurance [1997] 2 MLJ 165.
iii. Kumpulan Peransang Selangor [1997] 1 MLJ 789.
iv. Koperasi Rakyat [2000] 2 AMR 2311.
v. Dalip Bhagwan Singh [1998] MLJ 1 MLJ 1.
 Mahkamah Rayuan ?
• Terikat dengan keputusan sendiri?
i. Kesultanan Pahang [1997] 2 MLJ 701.
ii. Kwong Yik Bank Berhad [1999] 1 AMR 377
iii. Syarikat Kayu Bersatu Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [1995]
1 CLJ 113.
iv. Harris Solid State (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1996] 3 MLJ
489.
 Mahkamah Tinggi.
• Terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Atasan.
• Mengikat Mahkamah Bawahan.
• Kes-kes ?
i. Sundralingam [1967] 2 MLJ 211.
ii. Hassan bin Isahak [1948] MLJ Supp. 179.
 Mahkamah Luar ?
• Mempengaruhi dalam kes-kes yang in pari
materia.
• Kes-kes ?
i. Leonard v. Nachiappa Chetty [1923] 4
FMSLR 265.
ii. Jamil bin Harun [1948] 1 MLJ 217.