MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN HASHIM 2011283422 CIVIL PROCEDURE I

INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

1. Definition
 Derives from the nature of the court itself namely to observe and promote justice in
settling disputes between the parties
 Statute – Order 92 Rule 4 of the RHC

2. How the court deals with the abuse of process

 By terminating the proceedings should the court finds it scandalous, vexatious and
frivolous
 Can be done summarily – based only on the parties’ affidavits and applications to the
courts

3. Cases
 Permodalan MBF v Tan Sri Datuk Sri Hamzah
P obtained interim injunction (which should be made inter parte yet the P may
apply it ex parte on the ground of urgency) to prevent the company and its
directors to further exercise their functions
D applied to set aside – court granted but D cannot agree to the date and made
another application to stay order until inter parte application is heard – court
granted
Issue on appeal – does the court has jurisdiction to grant the stay under Order 55
Rule 2 RHC?
The order for the stay of execution can only be obtained through an appeal (for
final judgment only) – no rules provide the court may grant a stay for a
temporary order i.e. the said interim injunction
Supreme Court held – where the rules provide specifically and expressly the
sufficient remedies for the parties, the court shall not invoke its inherent
jurisdiction

 Pacific Centre
Mareva injunction – applicant may restrain D from dealing with his assets even
before establishing his claim – made ex parte
Can be obtained either through the Debtor’s Act or Para. 6 of CJA Schedule

FOR DOMESTIC USE ONLY Page 1

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN HASHIM 2011283422 CIVIL PROCEDURE I

The court further held that it is within the inherent jurisdiction of the court under
Order 92 Rule 4 RHC
*Anton Pillar order – to grant the P to enter into D’s premises to obtain evidence
to prevent D from destroying evidence – can be made ex parte

 Loo Chay Meng

Garnishee proceeding
The registrar summoned the garnishee but he did not appear
Applied to set aside as claimed that all documents were not served and relied on
Order 32 Rule 6 RHC
It is argued that the procedure on garnishee proceeding is provided under Order
49 and in that provision no mention is made on setting aside the order
Held – court can rely on Order 32 – when a specific provision is silent, court may
decide with reference to the general provision – if not, it will become a lacunae
and it will promote procedural injustice

 Tan Tho Fatt

Interlocutory injunction was used oppressively by the P
Held – it is within the court’s inherent jurisdiction to avoid injustice y setting
aside such claim or order

 Suppuletchumi
D – building contractors entered into joint venture agreements to develop the
land with the landowner
P’s husband was granted the license to operate and manage the land
The term of the agreement provided that the buildings on both piece of land must
be demolished – P claimed that the land as handed over to her by her granduncle
(claim for equitable ownership)
Order 18 Rule 19 sub (2) stated that the court shall only exercise its jurisdiction
under sub (1)(a) by examining the pleadings
The court however tried to override this provision by calling both parties and
examining the evidence in which the P failed to prove as such
Therefore the court is allowed to override the rules even if it has no jurisdiction
to do so to invoke its inherent jurisdiction in ensuring that justice is observed

FOR DOMESTIC USE ONLY Page 2

MUHAMMAD HAFIZ BIN HASHIM 2011283422 CIVIL PROCEDURE I

 Arab Malaysian Credit

22 August 1985 – substituted service to summon D
20 May 1986 – P applied for JID – D applied to set aside and successful on 1992
At that time, the lifespan of the writ is 12 months (now 6 months) and can be
extended only once for another 12 months – Order 6 Rule 7 RHC
P tried to revive the writ by applying to extend the duration of the writ to be
served – trial court held that the registrar who granted such extension had no
jurisdiction
CoA held – Order 3 Rule 5 RHC gives jurisdiction to the court to extent any
order at any time to prevent injustice
Gopal Sri Ram reiterated that it is never a question of jurisdiction (as the court
clearly has jurisdiction) but it is a question of discretion (in what basis did the
court reject/granted such order)

FOR DOMESTIC USE ONLY Page 3