8/11/2019 Anne Theresa de Souza v Majlis Agama Islam

1/1

Anne Theresa De Souza v Majlis Agama Islam, Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor

1.

Summary of facts

The appellant, Lim Yoke Khoon had acquired a new IC and a new name upon her conversion

to Islam. Despite having new name, the appellant had affirmed a Deed Poll and Declaration

using both her old and new name and further filed an Originating Summons (OS) using her

old name. She also used the old name to file an appeal against the decision on her OS.

2. Issue

- Whether the appellant had a legal entity to prosecute the appeal or the OS

- Whether her appeal was competent or not before the court

3. Apellants argument

The question of misnomer (misnaming of a person in a legal instrument) dod not arise as the

name of Lim Yoke Khoon referred to a legal and living person.

The appellant had stopped using her Muslim name of Noorashikin Lim binti Abdullah

(Noorashikin) by the said Deed Poll. He referred to her birth certificate at which bore heroriginal Chinese name of Lim Yoke Khoon. He also referred to her conversion certificate at

and contended that there was no dispute as to her identity and no prejudice was caused. He

further submitted that the name of the appellant referred to a legal person and a living person.

There was no question of multiple identities and no disability was shown by the respondent in

law or fact which prevented the appellant from seeking legal remedies

4. Respondents arguments

Took the stand that the misnomer was fatal, as Lim Yoke Khoon had ceased to death upon

the acquiring the new name and IC- that the appeal was not competent because the appellantwas not a legal entity.

Also contended that in law the identity of a person is based on his I/C. The person named as

plaintiff and now the appellant no longer existed. On that basis, raised a preliminary objection

that the misnomer was fatal as there was no plaintiff or appellant as named.

5. Judgement

The CA held that As the appeal was not properly before the court, the application to amend

the appellants name, being interlocutory to an incompetent appeal, could not be entertained.

(striking out the appeal)

- Order 5 r. 6(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 provides that any person other than a

person under disability or body corporate may begin and carry on proceedings in the

High Court by a solicitor or in person. The words in person there, in view of the

exception, must necessarily refer to a natural person who can be legally identified.

- The appellant remained a non-entity, could not initiate the OS in the High Court, and

had no capacity to come before this court by way of appeal against the decision made,

which was itself in the circumstances a nullity.