FACULTY OF LAW

LW224

LAW 602
CIVIL LAW PROCEDURE

INHERENT JURISDICTIONS OF THE COURT

PREPARED BY:
ARIFF HAIQAL BIN JAMSARI (2016239184)

PREPARED FOR:
PROF MADYA DR. WAN LIZA BT. MD AMIN

CLASS:
LWBH7K

SUBMISSION DATE:
25TH SEPTEMBER 2019
INHERENT POWERS

Discuss the case of Ann Joo Steel Berhad v Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pulau Pinang

[2019] 1 LNS 1126 and inherent jurisdiction of the court, and to what extent is the scope of the

court’s jurisdiction?

In a rule of law society such as Malaysia, the judiciary is the cornerstone of the

constitutional arch. Its independence, integrity and ability are indispensable to the proper

functioning of a legal system. The lack of an independent and competent adjudicatory institution

can also affect investor confidence which later affect our nation’s economy.

The inherent power of the court to exercise its procedural jurisdiction to avoid injustice

and ensure efficiency in litigation has long been recognised as a fundamental element of the

administration of justice. Yet, the courts, conscious of their place in the Common Law system,

their duty to apply legislation as the primary source of law and the corresponding concern that

judicial initiatives should not compromise this obligation, have placed limits on their capacity to

generate a parallel and supplemental jurisprudence to the rules of court.

The basis of this jurisdiction lies in the authority of the courts to uphold, protect and fulfil

the judicial function of administering justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective

manner. It is necessary for the administration of justice and is essential to the existence and proper

functioning of the courts.

It is a power which helps the courts maintain its authority and prevent its processes from

being obstructed and abused. In Order 92 rule 4, it provides for the removal of doubt, nothing in

the rules shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the court to make any order as may be necessary

to prevent injustice or an abuse of the court processes.

 Scope of inherent power consist of several circumstances. The first one is when written

law which clearly defines the substantive rights of the parties exist. If it is exist, this will not be

disturbed by invoking Order 92, Rule 4 as Order 92 is not intended to alter substantive law. It must

be applied to uphold justice and secure fairness in a trial. The inherent power is not made to strike

off the substantive law. Thus, where the substantive law has clearly defined the rights of the parties,

the inherent power cannot declare it as ultra vires.

Secondly, where the rules provide for sufficient remedies, the court will not exercise its

inherent powers. Rules cannot interfere with the exercise of the court’s inherent powers so long as

it deems it necessary to prevent any injustice or any abuse of its own process. Where the rules

contain provisions making available sufficient remedies, the court will not invoke its inherent

powers.

Thirdly, the court may exercise its inherent powers for the purpose of granting substantive

rights. The court may exercise its inherent powers to resolve a situation not covered by the rules

where there exists a lacuna in the law in order to reach a decision in the interest of justice.

The inherent jurisdiction of the court can be seen in the case of Ann Joo Steel Berhad v

Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pulau Pinang [2019] 1 LNS 1126. It relates to the issue on

the sanctity and validity of an Order of the High Court at Pulau Pinang made in 1995 (the 1995

Order). The Order was perfected and not appealed against or set aside. The Order was challenged

on the basis that, it was made in excess of jurisdiction, hence liable to be set aside.

In this case, the court mentioned the inherent power of the superior court. Central to the

issue of jurisdiction, it is a fact that a superior court has always been endowed with inherent

jurisdiction in addition to powers conferred by a Code or a statute. Jurisdiction of the court in

Malaysia is derived from Article 121 of the Federal Constitution. This includes the power of

judicial review and to review the decision of public authorities. It is also well accepted that

generally speaking, in the realm of administrative law and in any dispute between a citizen and the

state, the superior court has the inherent jurisdiction to rule on constitutionality or legality of all

governmental action.

It was decided in this case, with the intrinsic jurisdiction endowed in the Court, the High

Court cannot be precluded from issuing the 1995 Order. An inherent jurisdiction generally

speaking, may not be excluded even by statute. Far from excluding any jurisdiction, section 19 of

National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963 in essence empowers appeal to be

made, albeit on question of law. To sum up, its inherent jurisdiction of the 1995 Order was legally

issued.

In conclusion, the inherent power of court can be seen in the case of Ann Joo Steel Berhad

v Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Negeri Pulau Pinang as provided in Order 92 Rule 4.