Wednesday, 27 Jan 2021 01:14 PM MYT
BY DANIAL DZULKIFLY
Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 27 ― The Court of Appeal today quashed a development order for a proposed high rise project in Taman Rimba Kiara, allowing an appeal by the residents association of the adjoining Taman Tun Dr Ismail against a government decision.
Datuk Mary Lim, who chaired the three-judge panel, ruled that there were sufficient grounds to set aside the development order dated July 13, 2017.
She also said the residents association has locus standi to challenge the earlier government decision.
In her judgment today, Lim also stated that the court could not accept the justification given by the Kuala Lumpur Mayor (Datuk Bandar) that the development order was issued to resolve the housing issue faced by the Bukit Kiara longhouse community.
This monthly report is compiled and briefly summarised by a group of lawyers on a voluntary basis for the benefit of readers of The Edge.
Please consult your own lawyers if you need advice on the cases, issues and related matters highlighted here.
EXECUTIVE ACTS AND THE JUDICIARy AS GUARDIAN 0f CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Federal Court (‘FC’): Executive acts carried out pursuant to legislation affecting constitutional rights are invalid if not carried out in strict compliance with the letter of the rule of law
The Federal Constitution (‘Constitution’) guarantees several fundamental rights and liberties upon its subjects (‘Constitutional Guarantee’). The Judiciary is the guardian of that Constitutional Guarantee. Nonetheless, the Constitutional Guarantee is not absolute in the sense that Article 149(1) of the Constitution enables Parliament to pass laws that encroach upon the Constitutional Guarantee (‘Extraordinary Laws’) for the purposes of stopping or preventing �
This monthly report is compiled and briefly summarised by a group of lawyers on a voluntary basis for the benefit of readers of The Edge.
Please consult your own lawyers if you need advice on the cases, issues and related matters highlighted here.
Federal Court (‘FC’) sets guidelines with respect to its power to review its own decisions
The FC, being the apex Court of the country, is not bound by its own decisions. In hearing an appeal proper, the FC may depart from its earlier decisions. In reviewing its own decisions, the FC must be satisfied that the case is fit for review in that it falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances. Examples include coram failure or the panel of the FC was improperly constituted, breach of natural justice, or when bias is established. These examples fall within the meaning of ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’. To expand the category of cases beyond ‘manifest miscarriage of justice’, or giving a broad or unrest