Embarking on legal recourse in Malaysia’s civil court system, litigants face the crucial task of selecting the right court to address their grievances. This selection process is guided by three essential factors: monetary jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction. By carefully weighing these considerations, litigants ensure that their case is heard in the forum best equipped to provide effective and equitable resolution.
In the Malaysian legal system, courts are structured into five distinct levels, each with specific functions and jurisdictions. The hierarchy of courts, listed in descending order of authority, is as follows:
- Federal Court
- Court of Appeal;
- High Court;
- Sessions Court;
- Magistrate Court.
When it comes to solving legal disputes, these Courts are basically divided into two main types: originating courts and appellate courts. The originating court, including the High Court, Sessions Court, and Magistrate Court, is where legal matters start, and initial decisions are made. It’s like the beginning of a legal journey.
If someone isn’t satisfied with what decided in the originating court, they can turn to the appellate court for a second look. The appellate court, comprising the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court, acts like a review board, ensuring that everything was done fairly and correctly.
So, in simpler terms, you have the court where things begin, and if you’re not happy with that, there’s another court that can take a closer look and decide if everything was done right. Together, these two types of courts shape the stages of the legal process in Malaysia.
Choosing the right originating court to initiate legal proceedings involves a careful consideration of three key factors:
- Monetary Jurisdiction:
- This refers to the financial value of the claim or relief sought. Different courts have specific jurisdictional limits based on the amount involved. For substantial claims, the High Court is generally appropriate, while smaller claims may fall within the jurisdiction of subordinate court, i.e. Sessions or Magistrate Courts.
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
- Consider the nature and complexity of your dispute. Different courts are specialized in handling specific types of cases. The subject matter jurisdiction ensures that the court has the expertise to handle the legal issues involved.
- Territorial Jurisdiction:
- This pertains to the geographical location where the court has authority. Choose a court with jurisdiction over the area where the cause of action occurred or where the defendant resides. This ensures the convenience of parties involved and aligns with the territorial boundaries defined for each court.
Monetary Jurisdiction of Courts
- Magistrate Court: Handles cases with a monetary value does not exceed RM100,000.00. This court is suitable for smaller claims and less complex matters.
(refer to Section 90 Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (“SCA”))
- Sessions Court:
(1) Has jurisdiction over cases with a monetary value does not exceed RM1,000,000.00. It deals with claims that exceed the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrate Court but are still below the threshold for the High Court.
(refer to Section 65(1)(b) SCA)
(2) Has unlimited monetary jurisdiction over specific types of cases such as motor vehicle accidents and landlord-tenant distress cases. This means that for these particular types of cases, there is no specific monetary limit imposed, and the Sessions Court can hear cases involving any amount of monetary claims related to motor vehicle accidents and landlord-tenant distress.
(refer to Section 65(1)(a) SCA)
- High Court: The High Court has unlimited monetary jurisdiction, meaning there is no specific monetary limit for cases it can hear. It is empowered to handle cases involving any amount of monetary claims, making it the appropriate court for substantial claims and complex legal matters where the monetary value exceeds the limits of the Magistrate and Sessions Courts.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Courts
In Malaysia, while all courts typically have jurisdiction over civil matters within their monetary limits, specific courts are vested with exclusive or special jurisdiction by the statute to hear certain types of cases based on their nature or subject matter.
- High Court
- Generally, jurisdiction to hear all matters;
- Matter relating to immovable property;
- Divorce and matrimonial causes;
- Matters of admiralty;
- Bankruptcy or matter relating to companies;
- Appointment and control of guardians of infants and property of infants;
- Appointment and control of guardians of estates of idiots, mentally disordered persons; and
- Grants of probate or Letter of representation.
(refer Section 69(a) SCA & Section 24 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA”))
- Sessions Court
- Matter seek equitable remedies such as specific performance, injunction or declaration;
- Limited jurisdiction on matter relating to immovable property:
- Recovery of immovable property;
- Claim for rent, mesne profits, damages; and
- With the parties’ consent, matter for bona fide dispute as to titles;
- Interpleader proceeding
(refer Section 65(1)(c), 65(5), 70, 71, 73 SCA)
- Magistrate Court
- Limited jurisdiction on matter relating to immovable property:
- Recovery of immovable property; and
- Claim for rent, mesne profits, damages.
- Interpleader proceeding
(refer Section 93(1) SCA)
Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts
Section 3 of the CJA clearly delineates the composition of the High Court, comprising both the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Local jurisdiction of the High Court is further defined in Section 3 that: –
(a) in the case of the High court in Malaya, the territory comprised in the States of Malaya, namely, Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor, Terengganu and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur; and
(b) in the case of the High court in Sabah and Sarawak, the territory comprised in the States of Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan.
In any civil cases, if the High Court of Malaya has jurisdiction (after considering both of monetary jurisdiction and subject matter of the dispute), all branched of the High Court of Malaya in peninsular Malaysia will possess concurrent jurisdiction.
Whereas, for the subordinate court, Section 59 and 76 of the SCA similarly provided that the Sessions Court and Magistrate Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil cause or matter arising within the local limit of jurisdiction, if no such local limits have been assigned, arising in any part of Peninsular Malaysia.
To determine the appropriate branch of the High Court, Sessions Court, or Magistrate Court within the same jurisdiction but located in different states or districts to hear a dispute, the Court consistently refers to Section 23(1) of the CJA. Similarly, for matters concerning subordinate courts, a comparable provision to Section 23 is referred, as outlined in Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule of the SCA.
Section 23(1) CJA:
The High court shall have jurisdiction to try all civil proceedings where:
- the cause of action arose;
- the defendant or one of several defendants resides or has his place of business;
- the facts on which the proceedings are based exist or are alleged to have occurred; or
- any land the ownership of which is disputed is situated,
within the local jurisdiction of the court and notwithstanding anything contained in this section in any case where all parties consent in writing within the local jurisdiction of the other High court.
In conclusion, grasping the court jurisdiction is essential for anyone embarking on legal proceedings. It not only dictates the appropriate court to initiate a case but also sheds light on the potential costs involved.
We invite you to stay tuned for the upcoming chapter on the appellate jurisdiction of courts. We shall delve deeper into the processes through which decisions made in lower courts undergo review and potential modification in higher courts.
Written by Shinc Yan & Chloe Fong
THE END
