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 5 of 2021

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 5 of 2021
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 5 of 2021

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 25 March, 2021 | 0

    Whether an illegitimate child whose mother is not professing the religion of Islam can be said to be professing the religion of Islam?

    Case:

    ROSLIZA IBRAHIM v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ANOR [2021] 1 LNS 30

    Brief Facts:

    • Rosliza binti Ibrahim (“Rosliza”) was born at the Chinese Maternity Hospital Kuala Lumpur on 19 November 1981 to one Yap Ah Mooi (“Yap”) and one Ibrahim bin Hassan (“Ibrahim”).

     

    • Yap’s residential address was recorded as 38B, Jalan Pasar, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur.

     

    • There was no column for Ibrahim’s address in the birth certificate.

     

    • Nevertheless, Ibrahim’s application for an identity card on 22 June 1982 recorded the same residential address.

     

    • On 13 January 1994, Ibrahim submitted an application for an identity card on behalf of Rosliza.

     

    • In that application, Ibrahim stated Rosliza’s religion to be ‘Islam’. The residential address recorded was 37, Jalan Bunga Matahari 3, Taman Maju Jaya, Kuala Lumpur and also recorded Yap’s descent as Malay.

     

    • A year later on 14 January 1995, Ibrahim submitted an application for his new identity card where, this time, his address was recorded as 37, Jalan Bunga Matahari 3, Taman Maju Jaya, Kuala Lumpur, the same as Rosliza’s in the written application for her identity card. Ibrahim recorded his religion as ‘Islam’ and that he was married.

     

    • Exactly a month later, Yap submitted her application for identity card, recording the same address as Ibrahim’s and Rosliza’s, her religion as ‘Buddha’, her descent as Chinese and her marital status as ‘married’.

     

    • On 8 October 2008, Yap affirmed a statutory declaration (“SD”) to state the fact that Rosliza is her daughter, that Ibrahim and herself are her parents, that Ibrahim and herself were unmarried and lastly that Rosliza was not brought up as a Muslim.

     

    • Yap passed away on 7 February 2009.

     

    • It is to be noted that the address stated in Yap’s SD is different from the last known address of Ibrahim.

     

    • Rosliza asserts that despite what Ibrahim’s documents may have shown, Ibrahim and Yap were not married at the time of her birth and that she is accordingly an illegitimate child.

     

    • Thus, she argues that the religious status of her father cannot be regarded in the determination of her own religion. As such, she asserts that because she does not adopt the religion of her father and that she was never raised as a Muslim, she is not a person ‘professing the religion of Islam’.

     

    • The High Court had dismissed Rosliza’s application on the grounds that she failed to prove her claim on a balance of probabilities and a strong inference was drawn based on Ibrahim and Yap’s respective residential addresses and from their respective applications for their new identity cards stating ‘married’, that the two were married to each other.

     

    • The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision and Rosliza appealed to the Federal Court.

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED!

    • The Federal Court allowed the appeal and found that Rosliza is not, as a matter of fact, a person ‘professing the religion of Islam’ because there is no proof that she is a Muslim by original faith.

     

    • Her SD states that she was never a Muslim and that she was raised a Buddhist by her mother.

     

    • This is also supported by Yap’s SD where she also states that she never raised Rosliza as a Muslim.

     

    • Further, there are independent evidence in the religious authorities’ letters where they found no record of conversion of either Rosliza or her mother to Islam.

     

    • An extract of Rosliza’s birth certificate states the following in the column for her religion: ‘Maklumat Tidak Diperoleh’ (Information Not Obtained).

     

    • Collectively speaking, the evidence on record disclose that there is no proof that Rosliza ever professed the religion of Islam. The evidence suggests that Rosliza was raised in the Buddhist faith.
    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