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 18 of 2022

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 18 of 2022
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 18 of 2022

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 13 December, 2022 | 0

    “Whether a child born overseas to a foreign Father and to a Malaysian Mother can acquire Malaysian citizenship automatically by operation of law under the Federal Constitution?”

    Case:

    MAHISHA SULAIHA ABDUL MAJEED v. KETUA PENGARAH PENDAFTARAN & ORS & ANOTHER APPEAL* [2022] 1 LNS 1754 – COURT OF APPEAL

    Brief Facts:

    • There are two appeals fixed before the Court of Appeal;
     

             a)  Appeal 273= Mahisha Sulaiha v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran & Ors

             b)  Appeal 531= Kerajaan Msia & Ors v Suriani Kempe & Ors

     
    • In Appeal 273, Mahisha Suhaila who was born in India whose Mother is Malaysian and Father and Indian citizen respectively, is appealing against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court for dismissing her application for citizenship.
     
    • In Appeal 531, the Government of Malaysia, the Minister of Home Affairs and the ‘Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara’ (“collectively known as the “GOM”) is appealing against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court for granting the citizenship to the children of the six Malaysian mothers in the civil action. For the purposes of this Update, we will only be dealing with ‘Appeal 531’ as the main issue on law revolves around this civil action.
     
    • The 1st Respondent is Suriani Kempe, the President and Office Bearer of Association of Family Support & Welfare Selangor & Kuala Lumpur (“Family Frontiers”). The 2nd to 7th Respondents (“Mothers”) are the Malaysian Mothers who are married to foreign spouses who had given birth to their children outside Malaysia.
     
    • It is not in dispute that the children had acquired the citizenship of their father’s nationalities. It is also not in dispute, in any event that none of their children are without a citizenship or stateless.
     
    • The Mothers have applied for their children’s Malaysian citizenship by registration pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Federal Constitution (“FC”). However, their applications have since been rejected by the relevant public authorities.
     
    • Therefore, the Mothers proceeded to filed an action in the High Court seeking orders that their children are entitled to Malaysian citizenship by operation of law under Article 14[1](b) read together with the 2nd Schedule, Part II, Section 1(b) and/or Section 1(c) of the FC.
     
    • The Mothers contended that the word ‘father’ in Article 14[1](b), Part II, Section 1(b) of the 2nd Schedule shall be interpreted to mean either parent, that is father or mother.
     
    • The GOM on the other hand took the position that the word ‘father’ in the referred provisions is clear and unambiguous and must be given a plain and ordinary meaning. It simply means biological father.
     
    • The word ‘father’ can only refer to ‘mother’ if it is specifically mentioned as provided for in Part III on Citizenship of the FC.
     

    HIGH COURT

     
    • The High Court was in favour of the Mothers application and granted an order that on the proper reading of Article 14[1](b) and 2nd Schedule of Part II of the FC, the word ‘father’ includes mothers as well and therefore the children of the Mothers and all other women faced with similar situation are entitled to citizenship by operation of law.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED!

    • In a split decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers can be denied citizenship by operation of the law. The Court held that the word “father” in the 2nd Schedule of Part II of the Federal Constitution meant the biological father and cannot be extended to include the mother or parents.
     
    • The Court further held it was up to Parliament, not the Judiciary, to rewrite the Federal Constitution.
     
    • The Court of Appeal concluded that the word ‘father’ must be given a plain and ordinary meaning and it simply means father, not parents or mother.
     
    • The dissenting Judge concurred with the High Court.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj 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