Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 11 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 11 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 11 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Legal Employment – Whether a non-Muslim could be admitted as a Peguam Syarie to repre-sent parties in any proceedings before the Syariah Court in Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur.

    Case:

    Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan v Victoria Jayaseele Martin and Another [2016] 4 CLJ 12

    Brief Facts:

    • The appellants were the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (‘Majlis’) and the Peguam Negara Malaysia (‘Attorney General’).
    • The respondent, a non-Muslim advocate and solicitor, of Christian faith, was a diploma holder in Syariah Law and Practice from the International Islamic University of Malaysia.
    • The dispute in question arose when the respondent’s application to the Peguam Syarie Commit-tee for admission as a Peguam Syarie was rejected by the High Court.
    • The rejection was on the basis that she did not fulfil the requirement under Rule 10 of the Peguam Syarie Rules 1993 (‘Rules’) which requires the applicant to be a Muslim.
    • The High Court held that the “any person” pursuant to Section 59(1) of the Administration of Is-lamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (the ‘Act’), in their natural meaning amounts to any person regardless of his or her religion as there is nothing in the Act which restricts the meaning to ‘any Muslim’, thereby allowing the admission of non-Muslim as a Peguam Syarie. The Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the High Court.
    • The primary questions posed for determination were whether that part of Rule 10 mandating that only Muslims can be admitted as Peguam Syarie is in conflict with the Act.

    Decision: Appeal allowed, decision of Court of Appeal set aside

    • Section 59(1) of the Act is a general enabling legislation establishing the right of a Peguam Syarie to appear in the Syariah Courts.
    • The term ‘any person having sufficient knowledge of Islamic law’ as found in Section 59(1) is to be read harmoniously with Section 59(2)(a) which provides powers to the Majlis to make rules to provide for the procedures, qualifications and fees for the admission of Peguam Syarie in Wilayah Persekutuan.
    • Therefore, the qualification for an applicant to be Muslim (under Rule 10) read together with requirement to possess sufficient knowledge of Islamic law (under Section 59(1)) and the power of Majlis to make admission rules as Peguam Syarie (under Section 59(2)), provides a complete definition as to who may be appointed as a Peguam Syarie for the purposes of the Act.
    • The underlying cornerstone behind the Act is faith in Islam and Islamic law. The profession of a Peguam Syarie is based on the concept of Aqidah; the Islamic belief with certainty and conviction in one’s heart and soul in Allah and His divine law.
    • Having a Peguam Syarie who professes the religion of Islam, thus is important to achieve the ob-ject of the Act.
    • Hence, from the perspective of Syariah, it is fundamentally crucial for a Peguam Syarie to be se-lected among the Muslims, especially only those who have faith in the religion of Islam and who are able to perform their duties with full conviction of that belief.
    • As the respondent is a Christian and her faith is surely in conflict with the Muslim Aqidah, the Court of Appeal’s decision is set aside, thereby not allowing non-Muslims to be employed as Peguam Syarie.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil