KES GUAMAN MENUNTUT TAKHTA PEWARIS

Pada pandangan saya, berikut adalah Persoalan Undang-Undang yang pasti timbul dalam isu menuntut tahta atau waris pesaka adat yang bergelar:

1. Apakah dia (pemohon) mempunyai locus standi?
2. Apakah faktor yang menunjukkan dia ada 'sufficient interest'?
3. Apakah isu isu awal yang perlu di hujahkan dibawah Order 53 Kaedah mahkamah Tinggi?
4. Bilakah tarikh dia mula di ketepikan (tidak di iktiraf) dan mengapakah dia mengambil masa terlalu lama untuk mengambil tindakan guaman di Mahkamah?
5. Apakah permohonan ke Mahkamah termasuk perisytiharan sahaja atau remedi lain?
6. Mengapakah ia tidak dibawa ke Mahkamah dalam tempoh 40 hari selepas ia mendapat keputusan yang tidak memihak kepadanya (untuk mendapatkan 'leave' dibawah Order 53).
7. Adakah ia termasuk perintah mandamus atau certiorari?
8. Adakah termasuk juga perisytiharan bahawa sesuatu perlantikan itu adalah diluar perlembagaan (unconstitutional)? Adakah peruntukan perlembagaan negeri bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan?
9. Apakah kedudukan persetiaan dengan Inggeris? Sudahkah kepastian di dapati daripada London? Apakah kesan kemerdekaan keatas persetiaan itu?
10. Adakah isu 'non justiciable' sudah di fikirkan dan dikaji mendalam? Dan apakah satu keputusan YA Hakim Dato Sri Ram perlu di olah dan di kaji? Adakah fakta kes berlainan
11. Apakah peruntukan mendalam undang-undang yang terpakai dalam kes itu?
12. Apakah remedinya yang dipinta?

Order 53 Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi:

1. Dibawah Order. 53 r. 3(6)

Permohonan mencabar Kerajaan Negeri di Mahkamah perlulah di failkan dalam tempoh 40 hari daripada tarikh tuntutan dia di tolak atau dimaklumkan sesuatu keputusan itu. Tempoh ini dalam keadaan tertentu boleh di panjangkan oleh mahkamah.

2. Dibawah Order. 53 r. 3(1):

Tiada pengadu boleh mencabar keputusan kerajaan kecuali pertamanya dia mendapat kelulusan awal untuk menyaman daripada hakim.

3. Dibawah Order. 53 r. 3(4):

Hakim boleh sebelum memberikan kelulusan, meminta pihak pemohon memberikan jaminan kos. Ini jarang berlaku.

Kenapa perlu pakai Order 53 - bukankah boleh terus saman pakai Writ Mahkamah Tinggi? Perlu jaga-jaga disini, kerana kes:

AHMAD JEFRI MOHD JAHRI v. PENGARAH KEBUDAYAAN & KESENIAN JOHOR (2008)

Hakim memutuskan: The courts had for a long time recognized their power to grant a declaration under common law. But s. 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 armed them with the statutory authority to do so. It is also commonly accepted that O. 15 r. 16 RHC also provides the High Court with such power (see Lord Diplock's judgment in O'Reilly v. Mackman (supra) at p. 1127). However, O. 53 RHC sets out a specific procedure for an aggrieved party seeking relief, incorporating a declaration (as provided by s. 41 of the Specific Relief Act) against a public authority for infringement of his rights to which he was entitled to be protected under public law, to follow. It is our view that when such an explicit procedure is created (as compared to a general provision set out under O. 15 r. 16 RHC) to cater for this purpose, then as a general rule all such application for such relief must commence according to what is set down in O. 53 RHC, otherwise it is liable to be struck off for abusing the process of the court.

We observed that a challenge on the use of appropriate procedure is very much fact based. Thus, it is necessary for a judge when deciding on such matter to first ascertain whether there is a public law element in the dispute. If the claim for infringement is based solely on substantive principles of public law then the appropriate process should be by way of O. 53 RHC. If it is a mixture of public and private law then the court must ascertain which of the two is more predominant. If it has a substantial public law element then the procedure under O. 53 RHC must be adopted. Otherwise, it may be set aside on the ground that it abuses the court's process. But if the matter is under private law though concerning a public authority, the mode to commence such action under O. 53 RHC is not suitable.


PERLU DI TEKANKAN:


Ingat, didalam kes Mahkamah Tinggi YAM RAJA DATO' SERI HJ IZZUDDIN ISKANDAR SHAH IBNI ALMARHUM SULTAN IDRIS A'FIFULLAH SHAH v. DEWAN NEGARA PERAK, NEGERI PERAK (2006)

Hakim berkata " Since it involves "Royal Prerogative" the "degradation" has to be done by H.R.H.'s PERSONALLY, and is non-justiciable. Whether or not the applicant has merit or otherwise on the substantive motion of certiorari is irrelevant. Without leave, there will be no order of certiorari".

Lihat perkataan "Personally" diatas. Oleh itu, sekiranya sesuatu keputusan itu TIDAK dibuat oleh Sultan atau Raja secara peribadi atau sendiri, maka mungkin ia boleh di persoalkan di mahkamah didalam kes Perak. Tetapi didalam kes Negeri Sembilan, kuasa TIDAK pula terletak di tangan DYMM YDP Besar, tetapi dalam tangan Dewan Undang. Inilah yang membezakan Negeri Sembilan dengan kesemua Negeri negeri Melayu yang lain.

Dalam kes yang sama, terdapat sedikit kemusykilan apabila YA Hakim berkata: Lastly, I will fail to fully discharge my duty if I will not consider whether or not either or both the respondents was or were correctly cited. I am very positive if the learned counsels for the applicant were vigilant with the "impact and implication" of "Royal Prerogative Powers" they may perhaps advised the applicant to reconsider whether or not to proceed with his application. From my analysis above, both the respondents should not have been cited. They were not the "public body" administering "public law" entailing their exercise of their power to make a "decision" which "has adversely affected" the applicant that may have attracted leave application for an order of certiorari to quash such a "decision".

[Pandangan saya ialah perenggan terakhir ini adalah tidak tepat]