Court of Appeal of Malaysia

Introduction
According to the hierarchy below the Federal Court, the second highest court in the
hierarchy is Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal in Malaysia was established in 1964
pursuant to Article 121(1B) of the Federal Constitution, which is authorized by Federal
constitution, and the decisions are appealed to Federal court of Malaysia
The second important person in Malaysia judiciary after the Chief Justice of Malaysia, heads
the Court of Appeal is the President of the Court of Appeal which is appointed by Yang di-
Pertuan agong. The current President of the Court of Appeal in Malaysia is Zulkefli Ahmad
Makinudin. Currently, there are 25 of Court of Appeal judges and every proceeding in the
Court of Appeal have to be heard and disposed of by three Judges or such greater uneven
number of Judges as the President may in any particular case determine which is stated in
Section 38 Court of Jurisdiction Act 1964.
Under section 60 of the Court of Jurisdiction, the power of Court of Appeal authorized and
has jurisdiction to hear appeal against any High court decision relating to criminal matter
and civil matters and shows that Court of appeal is an appellate court of the judiciary system
in Malaysia.

Civil appellate jurisdiction

Under article 67 and 69 of the Court of Jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear
and determine any civil appeal from High Courts or matter, whether of its original or of its appellate
jurisdiction, subject to any written law regulating the terms and conditions upon which such appeals
are brought. However, there are some non-appealable matter to the Court of Appeal, which stated
under in section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The section 68 of the Court of Judicature
Act 1964 stated the amount or value of the subject matter of the claim is less than RM250, 000,
except with leave of the Court of Appeal. Secondly is where the judgment or order had made by
consent of parties. Thirdly is where the judgment or order relates to costs only, which by law have
left to the discretion of the Court, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal. Lastly, where by any
written law for the time being in force, the judgment or order of the High Court is expressly declared
to be final. The court of appeal has no power to review, re-open or re-hear any appeal have been
heard and disposed of by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is the final court of appeal on
matters decided by the High Court in its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction. Besides that, under
article 71 of the court of judicature 1964 shows that new trial, the judges will refer to the pas
judgement and give a new action according to the cases.
Criminal Jurisdiction
Besides the exercise of its original jurisdiction or in the exercise of its appellate revisionary
jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal
against any decision made by the High Court under Article 121 (1B) of the Federal
Constitution and section 50 (1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Yet, any appeal for decision made by the Magistrates Court in criminal matter will be
confined only to questions of law that have arisen in the course. The event of the appeal or
revision will affected by the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High
Court .
Any appeal must be filed within 14 days from the date on which the decision was
pronounced by the High Court and shall be with the leave of the Court of Appeal. If the
Public Prosecutor give a notice of appeal, or with the consent of that officer in writing, no
leave is required.

Example case in Court of Appeal

Toh Kian Peng v Public Prosecutor

The legal issue is whether the failure of the prosecution to offer an absconding witness at the end of
the prosecution’s case prejudicial to the appellant.
The appellant, Toh Kian Peng, was charged at the Johor Bahru High Court with an offence of murder
in contravention of section 302 of the Penal Code. The fact of the case is there was nothing accidental
about the stabbing. What the facts revealed clearly was an intentional act of stabbing as the accused
had pointed the edge of the knife towards the deceased. The accidental stabbing could not be
considered as doing any lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and
caution. It was a robbery in broad daylight and committing an armed robbery cannot possibly be
considered as doing a lawful act unlike the illustration of the hatchet man to Section 80 of
the Panel Code. The accused therefore could not on the primary facts benefit from the defence of
accidental stabbing of the deceased in the course of committing a robbery.
In conclusion, there is no merit in the appellant’s appeal. The conviction is safe. The appeal is
dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the High Court is affirmed.
References
http://www.judgments.my/ca/tee-yee-sein-v-public-prosecutor/10300
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law /the-superior-courts-in-Malaysia-
constitutional-law-essay.php