Flow of answering question:

Ms Amreeta: always remember that there are 3 jurisdictions of court, namely:

-

Subject matter;
Monetary
Territorial

When answering questions, remind yourself of 2 main things:

(i)
(ii)

At which level of court you may commence the action? (Issue: subject- matter
& monetary)
At where? (Issue: territorial)

(Ms Amreeta: divide like that, dont jumble up all 3 issues together)
Question 10
P leased his land to D. P wishes to commence an action against D to recover rent
owed by D. The amount of rent unpaid is RM980, 000. P claims that D has
damaged the land. P also wishes to claim damages from D amounting to RM380,
000.
In which court should P commence his action? Would your answer differ if P were
trying to recover his land from D and D disputes Ps title?
Ms Amreeta:
The sum that P wants to claim: RM 980, 000 + RM 380, 000 = RM 1, 360, 000.
Although pursuant to S65 (1)(b) of SCA, Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try all
actions n suits which not more than RM1,000,000 and that the sum P wishes to claim
exceeds the monetary jurisdiction of Sessions Court, BUT S 65 (1) (a)!!!!
S 65 (1) (a): Sessions Court has unlimited jurisdiction to try all actions and suits of a
civil nature in respect of landlord and tenant.
Therefore, P can commence an action at the Sessions Court.
(Ms Amreeta: here, the sum doesnt matter & the Sessions Court can actually order
more than RM1 million)
(BE CAREFUL WHEN READING THE FACTS! Do not have to go through the
consent/ relinquish all)
*Lets assume that the subject- matter is not motor vehicle accidents, landlord &
tenant, distress, the flow is:
The sum that P wants to claim: RM 980, 000 + RM 380, 000 = RM 1, 360, 000
Pursuant to S65(1)(b) of SCA subject to s 69, Sessions Court has jurisdiction to
try all actions n suits which not more than RM1,000,000. This exceeds the
monetary jurisdiction of Sessions Court.
Advises:

The case can be either transferred to the HIGH COURT which has unlimited
monetary limit.
P can still bring an action against D by virtue of S65 (3) and (4). Under
S65(3), if parties have entered into an agreement in writing that the Sessions
Court shall have jurisdiction to try the action or suit, the Sessions Court shall
have jurisdiction to try the same, although the amount of the subject matter
thereof may exceed the value limit of jurisdiction. S65 (4) requires this
agreement to be filed in sessions court. In other words, P need to obtain
consent from D in order to commence an action under this method.
(However, noted that the Sessions Court cannot order damages more than RM
1 million).
Relinquishment of damages. By virtue of s67 of SCA, A plaintiff may
relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the action or suit within
the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, but he shall not afterwards sue in respect
of the portion so relinquished. In other words, P can reduce the amount
claimed to below RM1 million in order to commence an action in Sessions
Court.

Would your answer differ if P were trying to recover his land from D and D disputes
Ps title?
Ms Amreeta:
First mention S.65 (1) (a)
- S 65 (1) (a) says unlimited jurisdiction to the landlord & tenant relationship.
Remember: it does not say unlimited monetary jurisdiction.
- but we must remember that S 65 (1) (a) is talking about action in personam
- rental/ damages in related to in personam
Recovery of Land
When it involves the issue of recovery of land, this becomes issues of in rem.
S 69 (a) provides that Sessions Courts shall have no jurisdiction in actions, suits or
proceedings of a civil nature in relation to immovable property except as provided in
sections 70 and 71.
Land is immovable property. However, there is exception as provided in S70 (1).
S 70 (1) provides action for recovery of land. Subject to subsection 4, a Sessions
Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action or suit for the recovery
of immovable property, and thereupon to issue order to the proper officer of the Court
to put the plaintiff in possession of the property.
Therefore, by virtue of S 70 (1), P can commence an action in Session Court.

Next, S 70 (2) tells us that we can include a claim for rent/ mesne profits 1 & for
damages. So, P can actually claim for rental and damages besides bringing an action
for recovery of land.
Here, monetary jurisdiction becomes an issue as well. Because by virtue of S 93, all
we discussed just now [S 69 (a), S 70 (1) & (2)] is applicable to Magistrate Court as
well.
Now, what we need to look at is the: value of land + the monetary claim to see
whether it falls under Magistrate Court or Sessions Court.
Bear in mind that the rental = landlord tenant relationship. Therefore, it falls under
unlimited jurisdiction of Sessions Court.
Dispute of Title
S 70 (4): the court shall not have jurisdiction if the court deems that there is a bona
fide question of title involved.
However, there is an exception to S 70 (4) S 71 (remember: this S 71 only applies
to SC but not MC)
S 71 states that if in any action or suit before a Sessions Court, the title to any
immovable property is disputed, or the question of the ownership thereof arises, the
Court may adjudicate thereon if all parties interested consent; but, if they do not all
consent, the Sessions Court Judge shall apply to the High Court to transfer the action
or suit to itself.
# Hiew Kim Swee v GC Gomez
Ms Amreeta: this case tells us that if the parties dont consent, the court has to ask
itself 2 questions:
(i) Is the dispute bona fide?
(ii) Is the dispute relating to the title to the land?
If both the questions are answered in affirmative, without the consent of all parties,
then the Sessions Court shall apply to have High Court to transfer the case to itself.
3 illustrations:
(i) P says he is proprietor of the land, and that D is his tenant, and that Ds
tenancy is terminable by a months notice. D may say that period of notice is 3
months/notice has not been given. Here, no question of title involved
Magistrate clearly has jurisdiction.
(ii) D pleads P is not the proprietor of the land, but only owns a lease which has
some years to run. Here again Magistrate has jurisdiction.
(iii)
D pleads P is not the proprietor/chief-tenant. The proprietor/chief
tenant is somebody else. Here, the question of title may well be involved and
if the Magistrate forms an opinion before the end of the case that this question
1 What are mesne profits? Sums of money paid for the occupation of land to a person
with right of immediate occupation, where no permission has been given for that
occupation. Mesne profits must be drawn from the land itself, rather than
improvements on it. For example, mesne profits may accrue from growing crops on
land. (profits from your rent, it is different from rent because theres product).

will have to be seriously considered and is not to be put aside as entirely

groundless; a bona fide question of title is involved.
(If there is no bona fide dispute, then the SC would still have jurisdiction).
Ms Amreeta: name the court properly. For e.g. HC in Penang write High Court of
Malaya at Penang or High Court of Sabah & Sarawak at Sandakan (not High Court
of Penang)
Question 11 (a)
P resides in Sandakan. D, a Taiwanese, owns a factory in Penang. P has been
supplying raw materials to D for use in the latters factory. Recently, a dispute arose
between P and D. May P commence an action against D in the High Court at
Sandakan?
Tips: always answer whether P may commence an action against D in the High Court
at Sandakan before going to the issue of forum convenience.
Flow of answering:
In order for P to commence an action at High Court at Sandakan, it has to be shown
that the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak has jurisdiction.
This is because Sandakan falls under the local jurisdiction of the High Court of Sabah
& Sarawak.
Section 3 CJA meaning of local jurisdiction
In order to determine whether High Court of Sabah & Sarawak has jurisdiction,
reference must be made to S 23 (1) CJA.
S23(1) CJA provides for 4 para/circumstances which the said High Court has
jurisdiction:
(a) The CoA arose within the local jurisdiction of HC
(b) The Df or one of the Df resides or has his place of business within the local
jurisdiction of HC
(c) The fact exists or is alleged to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of
HC
(d) Any land where the ownership of which is disputed is situated within the local
jurisdiction of HC (*only applies to land matter - dispute of ownership of
land)
In order for High Court of Sabah & Sarawak to have jurisdiction, one of the 4
elements must be satisfied.
These 4 elements must be read disjunctively, not conjunctively (Mee Ing v Cik Jah)
Then apply to the fact. Here, it is P who resides in Sandakan.
Para (a) cause of action accrues here, it is not clear. But since it is about sending
materials, it is probably in somewhere around Penang.
Para (b) looks into the residence of defendant (D here is a Taiwanese) not fulfilled.
D owns a factory in Penang not fulfilled.
Para (c) it is unlikely since the facts of case did not show so.

Para (d) here, it is not land matter not relevant

None of the 4 elements has been satisfied, thus the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
has no jurisdiction at this stage.
P cannot commence action in High Court of Sabah & Sarawak at Sandakan.
HOWEVER, proviso to S 23 (1).
S.23 (1) proviso provides: Where all parties consent in writing within the local
jurisdiction of the other HC.
Requirements:
(1) all parties must consent
(2) consent must be in writing
(3) consent must be signed
(4) of the other High Court2
The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak shall have jurisdiction to try all civil
proceedings where all parties consent in writing within the local jurisdiction of
the High Court of Malaya.
Based on proviso to S 23 (1), which states that the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
shall have jurisdiction to try this civil proceeding where parties consent in writing
within the local jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya, it is argued that the High
Court that does not have jurisdiction to hear the case may hear the case if parties to
the suit all consent in writing, sign the consent and the consent is obtained in the local
jurisdiction of the other High Court.
One issue arise here is what is meant by other High Court?
- The High Court that does have the jurisdiction
Here, since the defendant has a place of business in Penang, and Penang falls under
the local jurisdiction of High Court of Malaya, the High Court of Malaya has the
jurisdiction.
Using the proviso in S 23(1), if all the parties can consent within the local jurisdiction
of the High Court of Malaya, the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak has the jurisdiction.
Once the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak has the jurisdiction, all of its branches shall
have concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, the action can be commenced at any branches
of High Court of Sabah & Sarawak, including the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak at
Sandakan.
(Remember: dont mix up co-ordinate and concurrent jurisdiction)
2 Question: who is the other High Court? (read s 23 (1) & proviso carefully)It
should be read like this: The High Court ____ shall have jurisdiction to try all civil
proceedings where all parties consent in writing within the local jurisdiction of the
High Court ___.
For example in this case: The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak shall have
jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where all parties consent in writing within
the local jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya.

Normally in question, after establishing which court has jurisdiction the branches
have concurrent jurisdiction then only move to the issue of forum convenience
(b) Tong was a resident of Sandakan, Sabah. He died in October 2010. His estate has
assets worth RM 5 million. Tong is survived by his three adult sons, Tek, Tok and
Mok. Tek and Tok reside in Sandakan. They had always resided with Tong until his
death. Mok has resided in Petaling Jaya since 1988. Tek and Tok are partners in a
printing firm in Shah Alam. In November 2010 Tek and Tok told Mok that Tong had
left behind a will by which he had given his entire estate to Tek and Tok. Mok is
surprised that his father had left no part of his estate to him. He believes that the will
is a forged document. Mok intends to commence an action against Tek and Tok in the
High Court in Kuala Lumpur for a declaration that Tongs will is a forged document.
Discuss whether the High Court in Kuala Lumpur has jurisdiction over Moks case.
Ms Amreeta:
Conclusion: Although it is clear that the High Court of Malaya and High Court of
Sabah & Sarawak has the jurisdiction, the case can be commenced in the High Court
of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, the more convenient forum would be High Court of
Sabah & Sarawak at Sandakan.