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.
Top Related