RULING/ DECISION OF THE CASE

Case: Ang Seng Wan v Suruhanjaya Di Raja Malaysia and Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 131

In this case, the judgment was given by Mohd Saari J in the Court of Appeal Kuala Lumpur. In

the result, the appeal was allowed with costs and the court makes the following orders:

a. We set aside the order of dismissal against ASP Ang and order that ASP Ang be

reinstated in the police force;

b. With regard to prayer two of the statement of claim, we remit the case to the court

below for assessment by the learned registrar.

The other two learned judges, Mokhtar Sidin JCA and Alaudin JCA have read this judgment in

draft and have expressed their agreement with the same, Appeal allowed.

Case: Raja Abdul Malek Muzaffar Shah bi Raja Shahruzzaman v Setiausaha Suruhanjaya

Pasukan Polis & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 308

In this case, the judgment was given by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in the Court of Appeal Kuala Lumpur.

In the result, the appeal was allowed. The decision of the High Court was set aside; judgment

was entered in terms of the declaration sought in prayer and the order for reinstatement

claimed in prayer of the statement of claim, while the claim for damages in prayer was

dismissed. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the appeal and those

incurred in the court below. The usual order that the deposit paid into court be refunded to the

appellant was also made.

Similarities and differences in the Ruling of both cases studied.

Similarities Differences

The obvious similarities that can be found

through the decision of these two cases are;

the decision given was in favor of the

appellant where the reinstatement of their

position in the police force was given. Besides,

In both cases, the appeal was allowed in costs

whereby the respondent was ordered to pay

the costs of the appeal.

In Raja Abdul Malek’s case, the claim for

damages was dismissed.

Analyzing whether the decisions/rulings in both cases are the same and applying the

operation of stare decisis

Stare Decisis is a latin phrase which literally translates as “to stand by decided matters”.

Based on this doctrine, Judges do not decide arbitrarily in arriving at a decision. They must

follow PRECEDENT – commonly defined as “a decision of a court of law cited as an authority for

the legal principle embodied in its decision”. This doctrine requires courts not only to follow

precedents but in specific circumstances, courts are bound to do so, whether or not the judge

in the subsequent case agrees with the precedent in question. The operation of stare decisis

can be seen in two ways, vertically and horizontally.

Vertically, higher court within the same provincial jurisdiction acts as binding authority on a

lower court within that same jurisdiction. In practice, the subordinate court decision can not

bind each other as they are bounded by the higher courts decisions.

Horizontally, The High Court is technically not bound by its own decisions though, in practice,

High Court judges will usually follow previous High Court decisions unless there are good

reasons not to do so.The Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions however subject to

certain exception if the court does not want to do so. The Court cannot depart from its decision

unless it is in line with Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] 2 All ER 293, where the Court of

Appeal explained the situations in which it might depart from its own previous decisions:

(1) where the court is faced with two conflicting decisions of its own, it may choose which

one to follow;

(2) the court is not bound to follow one of its own previous decisions which is inconsistent

with a later House of Lords decisions; and

(3) the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own which was given per incuriam, that

is to say a case which was decided without taking into account some statutory provision

or precedent which would have affected the decision.

The Federal Court is said to be bound by its own previous decisions unless new legislation is

amended or the case being overruled by another decision of the Federal Court itself.

APPLICATION OF STARE DECISIS IN THE CASE STUDY

Based on the two decisions given in Ang Seng Wan and Raja Abdul Malek, they were in the

favor of the Plaintiffs. It can be deducted that the rulings in both cases are the same because

both cases apply the same legal principle known as ratio decidendi as being discussed

previously.

The application of stare decisis is applied vertically, as both cases were decided in the Court of

Appeal. The case of Raja Abdul Malek in 1995 was cited as an authority referred to in the case

of Ang Seng Wan whick took place later on in 2002.