Handout noor jahan v md yusofff case review
2
NOOR JAHAN BTE ABDUL WAHAB v MD YUSOFF BIN AMANSHAH & ANOR [1994] 1 MLJ 156 Facts The plaintiff was the former wife of the first defendant and claimed that 47,001 units of Amanah Saham shares ('the shares') issued by the second defendant, Amanah Saham Nasional Sdn Bhd, although registered in the first defendant's name were held in trust for her and sought an injunction and an order for transfer of the shares in her favour. The plaintiff alleged that she had purchased the shares at the instance of the first defendant and a resulting trust in her favour arose. The first defendant alleged that the shares were a gift and raised a preliminary objection that by virtue of art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Syariah Courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues arising in the suit. Issues Whether sapencarian property within the meaning of s.40(3)(b)(iv) of the Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1959 Whether the issue was within the jurisdiction of Civil courts or Syariah Courts Held and Reason of Judgment Held, dismissing the first defendant's application: As for the question whether the plaintiff's action related to 'division inter vivos of sa-pencarian property' within the meaning of s 40(3)(b)(iv) of the Enactment, it was common ground that the subject matter of this action was 47,001 units of shares which had been purchased with money provided exclusively by the plaintiff. There was no question of the purchase price or any part of it, having been raised or acquired out of joint resources or joint
Transcript of Handout noor jahan v md yusofff case review
NOOR JAHAN BTE ABDUL WAHAB v MD YUSOFF BIN AMANSHAH & ANOR[1994] 1 MLJ 156
Facts
The plaintiff was the former wife of the first defendant and claimed that 47,001 units of Amanah Saham shares ('the shares') issued by the second defendant, Amanah Saham Nasional Sdn Bhd, although registered in the first defendant's name were held in trust for her and sought an injunction and an order for transfer of the shares in her favour. The plaintiff alleged that she had purchased the shares at the instance of the first defendant and a resulting trust in her favour arose. The first defendant alleged that the shares were a gift and raised a preliminary objection that by virtue of art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Syariah Courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues arising in the suit.
Issues
Whether sapencarian property within the meaning of s.40(3)(b)(iv) of the Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1959
Whether the issue was within the jurisdiction of Civil courts or Syariah Courts
Held and Reason of Judgment
Held, dismissing the first defendant's application:
As for the question whether the plaintiff's action related to 'division inter vivos of sa-pencarian property' within the meaning of s 40(3)(b)(iv) of the Enactment, it was common ground that the subject matter of this action was 47,001 units of shares which had been purchased with money provided exclusively by the plaintiff. There was no question of the purchase price or any part of it, having been raised or acquired out of joint resources or joint efforts of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed.
The plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not ancillary to the divorce between her and the first defendant but merely consequential to the primary relief sought, ie the declaration as to ownership of the shares. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim being based on the presumption of a resulting trust, had nothing to do with Muslim religious affairs. Hence, the civil court is competent to hear the case.
