Back to Top

Issue #14/2019
04 April 2019

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

  1. Case(s) of the Week

    1. ALAGAN MAYALAGAN v. KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM & ANOR [2019] 3 CLJ 701

  2. Appeal Updates

    1. Appeal Updates

  3. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2019 Volume 3 (Part 5)

  4. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

  5. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

ALAGAN MAYALAGAN v. KETUA PENGARAH PERKHIDMATAN AWAM & ANOR [2019] 3 CLJ 701
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN JC
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: WA-25-236-12-2016]
05 DECEMBER 2018

LABOUR LAW: Pensions – Pension adjustment – Applicant’s last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 – Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) – Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant’s appeal for adjustment of pension – Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word ‘portal’ – Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant’s pension to that based on a lower position than position he held at time of his retirement – Rules of natural justice – Whether breached – Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant’s pension – Whether applicant had legitimate expectation – Whether first respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant’s appeal irrational and unreasonable – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review – Certiorari – Application for – Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant’s appeal for adjustment of pension – Applicant’s last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 – Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) – Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word ‘portal’ – Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant’s pension to that based on a lower position than the position he held at time of his retirement – Rules of natural justice – Whether breached – Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant’s pension – Whether applicant had legitimate expectation – Whether first respondent’s decision to dismiss applicant’s appeal irrational and unreasonable – Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Baharudin @ Kadir Abu Nawas v. PP [2018] 1 LNS 704 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Baharudin @ Kadir Abu Nawas [Criminal Trial No: TWU-45B-4/6-2015]

  2. PP v. Sah Chin Chong [2018] 1 LNS 682 (CA) overruling the High Court case of PP v. Sah Chin Chong [2016] 1 LNS 906

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2018] 1 LNS 531

ASTON VILLA SDN BHD v. INFRA SEGI SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE

CONTRACT: Construction Contract - Adjudication decision - Application to set aside - Defences raised for the first time in adjudication responses - Whether such defences had been considered by adjudicator - Whether failure to consider such defences amounted to breach of natural justice - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 15(d)

CONTRACT: Construction Contract - Adjudication decision - Application to set aside - Cross-claim for damages for loss of reputation - Whether adjudicator had failed to consider such cross-claim - Whether such failure amount to breach of natural justice - Whether adjudicator dismissed cross-claim purely on ground of lack of jurisdiction - Whether adjudicator considered the cross-claim on basis of breach of contract - Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, s. 27

  • For the plaintiff in OS WA-24C-174-10/2017 & for the defendant in OS WA-24C-190-10/2017 - Mokhzani Harris Yusof; M/s Edlin Ghazaly & Associates
  • For the defendant in OS WA-24C-174-10/2017 & for the plaintiff in OS WA-24C-190-10/2017 - Harmeet Singh & Chan Mun Fei; M/s Raja Eleena Siew Ang & Associates

[2018] 1 LNS 572

KOH THIAM HUA v. PP

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Whether bail should be granted - Security offence - Bail not allowed by section 13(1) of Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 ("SOSMA") - Whether exception in section 13(2) of SOSMA applies - SOSMA, ss. 3, 13(1), (2), First Schedule - Penal Code, s. 130V(1)

  • For the applicant - Vasudevan Appu; M/s Vasudevan A & Co
  • For the respondent - DPP Lim Cheah Yit, Deputy Public Prosecutor

[2018] 1 LNS 61

YONG MEI KENG v. BONDA VILLA SDN BHD

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Advancement - Claim for loan advanced to company - Plaintiff produced her own prepared list of expenses, receipts, invoices and bills - Reliance on unaudited company account - Whether plaintiff had utilised her own funds - Whether plaintiff had produced any proof to show reason for advancement

COMPANY LAW: Directors - Claim against director - Claim for reimbursement or compensation - Losses suffered by company - Allegation that director enticed customer's to leave company - Refunds made to customers following their withdrawal from company - Whether there was any evidence of enticement by director

  • For the appellant - Patrick Dass; M/s Patrick Dass & Co
  • For the respondent - Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi & Amanda; M/s Thomas Philip

[2018] 1 LNS 116

LEE A HONG @ LEE LUM SOW lwn. ISHAK ISMAIL & SATU LAGI

UNDANG-UNDANG TANAH: Perintah jualan - Permohonan - Perintah jualan bagi menamatkan pemilikan bersama - Jualan harta tak alih atas perintah mahkamah - Permohonan oleh pemilik majoriti bahagian tanah - Pemilik minoriti enggan menamatkan pemilikan bersama - Hasrat pemilik majoriti untuk membangunkan hartanah terbantut berikutan kesukaran dalam menukar status kegunaan hartanah - Sama ada wujud keadaan yang perlu dan suai manfaat untuk menyelesaikan pertikaian melalui perintah jualan - Sama ada pilihan untuk membeli hartanah wajar diberikan kepada pemilik minoriti terlebih dahulu

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Adrian Oswald, Phillip Ryan Mathew & Tan Kian Peng; T/n Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners
  • Bagi pihak defendan-defendan - Azmal Mohd Saad & Ina Junaida Abd Arif; T/n Rusmah Arunan & Associates

[2018] 1 LNS 178

SMART FAIR SDN BHD lwn. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KERIAN & SATU LAGI

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Pliding - Pliding yang defektif - Tindakan untuk mencabar keputusan pihak berkuasa negeri mengenai pengambilan balik tanah - Kausa tindakan kecuaian dibawa melalui hujahan dan afidavit - Sama ada pliding plaintif telah mendedahkan fakta material berkenaan kaitan defendan dengan pengambilan balik tanah - Sama ada kausa tindakan telah diplidkan secara teratur - Sama ada kegagalan memplidkan fakta yang material menjadikan penyataan tuntutan defektif - Sama ada pliding yang defektif boleh diperbetulkan melalui afidavit

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Tindakan - Penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Tindakan guaman sivil diambil untuk mencabar keputusan pihak berkuasa negeri mengenai pengambilan balik tanah - Sama ada tindakan harus dimulakan melalui semakan kehakiman - Sama ada tindakan plaintif merupakan suatu penyalahgunaan proses mahkamah - Sama ada proses mahkamah telah digunakan secara bona fide - Sama ada tindakan plaintif boleh dipertahankan

  • Bagi pihak plaintif - Chin Ai Mei; T/n Phee, Chen & Ung
  • Bagi pihak defendan - Teoh Ching Chong, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak

CLJ 2019 Volume 3 (Part 5)

COURT OF APPEAL

DKLS Sunshine Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor
Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Ahmadi Asnawi, Rhodzariah Bujang JJCA
(Administrative Law; Land Law - Acquisition of land - Objection against compensation - Filing of ex parte application for judicial review to quash order of compensation) [2019] 3 CLJ 593 [CA]

Mohamad Nasuha Abdul Razak v. PP
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil JJCA
(Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Principles - Terrorism related offences) [2019] 3 CLJ 612 [CA]

Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd v. Jaya Sudhir Jayaram & Ors
Badariah Sahamid, Suraya Othman, Stephen Chung JJCA
(Civil Procedure; Arbitration - Proceedings - Injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings) [2019] 3 CLJ 628 [CA]

PP v. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd & Ors
Abdul Rahman Sebli, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Suraya Othman JJCA
(Criminal Law - Money laundering - Forfeiture - Application for forfeiture of properties by Public Prosecutor) [2019] 3 CLJ 650 [CA]

So Lian Yee v. China Railway Engineering Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor
Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Stephen Chung JJCA
(Contract - Damages - Liquidated ascertained damages - Claim for) [2019] 3 CLJ 689 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Alagan Mayalagan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam & Anor
Faizah Jamaludin JC
(Labour Law; Administrative Law - Pensions - Pension adjustment - Applicant's last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38) [2019] 3 CLJ 701 [HC]

Mammoth Empire Construction Sdn Bhd v. Stam Engineering Sdn Bhd & Another Case
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J
(Construction Law - Adjudication - Enforcement - Application to enforce adjudication decision) [2019] 3 CLJ 718 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review - Application for - Objection against award of compensation for acquisition of land - Filing of ex parte application for judicial review to quash order of compensation - Subsequent application for leave for judicial review to quash acquisition of land - Whether judicial review in respect of acquisition of land or against quantum of compensation - Whether application filed out of time - Whether delay inordinate - Whether reasons provided for delay - Whether there was application for extension of time - Whether application ought to be dismissed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(2), 3(6)
DKLS Sunshine Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor
(Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Ahmadi Asnawi, Rhodzariah Bujang JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 593 [CA]

Judicial review - Certiorari - Application for - Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant's appeal for adjustment of pension - Applicant's last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 - Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) - Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word 'portal' - Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant's pension to that based on a lower position than the position he held at time of his retirement - Rules of natural justice - Whether breached - Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant's pension - Whether applicant had legitimate expectation - Whether first respondent's decision to dismiss applicant's appeal irrational and unreasonable - Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13
Alagan Mayalagan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam & Anor
(Faizah Jamaludin JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 701 [HC]

ARBITRATION

Proceedings - Injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings - White knight invested in project based on alleged collateral understanding with shareholders that shares in joint venture company would be held on trust in his favour - Part of shares transferred to white knight - Allegation that transfer of shares in contravention of shareholders' agreement - Shareholders and joint venture company proceeded with arbitration to resolve dispute in accordance with arbitration clause in shareholders' agreement - White knight applied for injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings - Whether non-party to arbitration agreement could restrain parties to arbitration agreement from continuing with arbitration proceedings - Test applicable to non-party - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10(1) & (3)
Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd v. Jaya Sudhir Jayaram & Ors
(Badariah Sahamid, Suraya Othman, Stephen Chung JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 628 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Injunction - Injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings - White knight invested in project based on alleged collateral understanding with shareholders that shares in joint venture company would be held on trust in his favour - Part of shares transferred to white knight - Allegation that transfer of shares in contravention of shareholders' agreement - Shareholders and joint venture company proceeded with arbitration to resolve dispute in accordance with arbitration clause in shareholders' agreement - White knight applied for injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings - Whether non-party to arbitration agreement could restrain parties to arbitration agreement from continuing with arbitration proceedings - Test applicable to non-party - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 10(1) & (3)
Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd v. Jaya Sudhir Jayaram & Ors
(Badariah Sahamid, Suraya Othman, Stephen Chung JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 628 [CA]

CONSTRUCTION LAW

Adjudication - Enforcement - Application to enforce adjudication decision - Claim for payment for works done in sub-contract - Whether service of payment claim defective and contrary to s. 38 of Construction Industry and Payment Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Whether adjudicator breached rules of natural justice - Whether adjudicator empowered under s. 25 of CIPAA to establish procedures for conduct of proceedings - Whether there were impediments to adjudication decision being enforced - Whether all requirements for enforcement of adjudication decision met - Construction Industry and Payment Adjudication Act 2012, s. 28
Mammoth Empire Construction Sdn Bhd v. Stam Engineering Sdn Bhd & Another Case
(Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J) [2019] 3 CLJ 718 [HC]

Adjudication - Setting aside - Application to set aside adjudication decision - Claim for payment for works done in sub-contract - Whether service of payment claim defective and contrary to s. 38 of Construction Industry and Payment Adjudication Act 2012 ('CIPAA') - Adjudicator dismissed respondent's request for hearing and to call witnesses - Whether adjudicator breached rules of natural justice - Whether adjudicator empowered under s. 25 of CIPAA to establish procedures for conduct of proceedings - Whether respondent complied with statutory rights prescribed in s. 10(1) and (2) of CIPAA - Whether adjudicator acted in excess of jurisdiction under s. 15(b) and/or s. 15(d) of CIPAA
Mammoth Empire Construction Sdn Bhd v. Stam Engineering Sdn Bhd & Another Case
(Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J) [2019] 3 CLJ 718 [HC]

CONTRACT

Damages - Liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) - Claim for - Contractor claimed against subcontractor for costs for rectification of defective works under subcontract and LAD - Whether amount of LAD claimed for justifiable - Whether calculation for LAD correct and in compliance with statutory provisions - Whether LAD proven by contractor - Whether amount of LAD damages successfully challenged by subcontractor - Contracts Act 1950, s. 75
So Lian Yee v. China Railway Engineering Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor
(Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Stephen Chung JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 689 [CA]

CRIMINAL LAW

Money laundering - Forfeiture - Application for forfeiture of properties by Public Prosecutor - Whether property obtained as result of or in connection with money laundering - Whether a predicate offence was committed - Whether Public Prosecutor adduced sufficient evidence to support application for forfeiture - Whether evidence of prosecution rebutted on balance of probabilities - Whether properties ought to be forfeited - Anti-Money Laundering And Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001, ss. 4(1) 56(1)
PP v. Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Abdul Rahman Sebli, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Suraya Othman JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 650 [CA]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sentence - Appeal against sentence - Terrorism related offences - Principle of proportionality - Pledging of oath of allegiance - Whether serious offence - Whether imprisonment term of 13 years manifestly excessive in absence of acts of violence - Whether sentence to be reduced - Whether act of downloading extremist material showed accused was motivated by ideology of terrorist group - Whether imprisonment term of four years reasonable - Deposits of money to fund and support terrorist group - Whether accused a willing participant - Whether sentence of ten years imprisonment appropriate - Penal Code, ss. 130J(1)(a), 130JB(1)(a) & 130N(b)
Mohamad Nasuha Abdul Razak v. PP
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 612 [CA]

Sentencing - Principles - Terrorism related offences - Whether serious crimes - Whether deterrent sentences warranted - Whether severity of penalty should be proportionate to gravity of offence and degree of responsibility of offender - Guidelines - Whether reference could be made to 'Definitive Guideline to Terrorism Offences' by British Sentencing Council in absence of definitive guidelines from Malaysian superior court - Whether levels of criminality differentiated by culpability and harm
Mohamad Nasuha Abdul Razak v. PP
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Ahmadi Asnawi, Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 612 [CA]

LABOUR LAW

Pensions - Pension adjustment - Applicant's last drawn salary adjusted to be equivalent of Crane Driver (Low Carriage) at salary grade D38 - Applicant claimed adjustment of pension should be equivalent to salary grade D5 for Crane Driver (High Portal) - Application for an order of certiorari to quash decision of first respondent rejecting applicant's appeal for adjustment of pension - Whether first respondent failed to take into account meaning of word 'portal' - Whether procedurally proper to adjust applicant's pension to that based on a lower position than position he held at time of his retirement - Rules of natural justice - Whether breached - Whether first respondent had duty to act fairly to correct its wrongful adjustment of applicant's pension - Whether applicant had legitimate expectation - Whether first respondent's decision to dismiss applicant's appeal irrational and unreasonable - Pensions Adjustment Act 1980, ss. 3, 13
Alagan Mayalagan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam & Anor
(Faizah Jamaludin JC) [2019] 3 CLJ 701 [HC]

LAND LAW

Acquisition of land - Objection against compensation - Filing of ex parte application for judicial review to quash order of compensation - Subsequent application for leave for judicial review to quash acquisition of land - Whether judicial review in respect of acquisition of land or against quantum of compensation - Whether application filed out of time - Whether delay inordinate - Whether reasons provided for delay - Whether there was application for extension of time - Whether application ought to be dismissed - Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 r. 3(2), 3(6)
DKLS Sunshine Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang & Anor
(Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Ahmadi Asnawi, Rhodzariah Bujang JJCA) [2019] 3 CLJ 593 [CA]


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY: LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
    by UMMA DEVI LOGANATHAN* [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlvi

  2. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY: LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN MALAYSIA

    by
    UMMA DEVI LOGANATHAN*

    1.0 Introduction

    The problem of cross-border insolvency existed as early as 1302, when the Ammanati Bank of Pistoja in Italy became insolvent. In that case, soon after the incident of insolvency, the bank closed down its branch in Rome and moved its assets from Rome to Pistoja. The creditors and clients of the Roman branch were seriously affected and hence they requested Pope Boniface VIII to intervene in the matter. The bank had its seat in the Republic of Pistoja having branches and assets all over the Europe. The principal debtors of the bank were in Spain, England, Portugal, Germany, and France. Many of the debtors were not ready to pay back their debts. But due to the intervention of Pope Boniface and the assurance he had offered to the safe conduct for the owners of the bank to return to Rome, he secured their full co-operation. The Holy See was also actively engaged in the activities of collecting paper and information and distribution of assets. Letters rogatory were sent to the clergy of various countries for collection of debts by providing necessary information about the debtors. Finally, the matter was resolved successfully.[1]

    . . .

    *Magistrate, LLB (Hons) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Masters in Public Administration (MPA) Universiti Sains Malaysia, LLM (Corporate) Universiti Utara Malaysia. Currently, pursuing PhD in criminology at Universiti Sains Malaysia.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. THE REPEAL OF SECTION 42 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 2005: A CHANGE TOO FAR?* [Read excerpt]
    by GREGORY DAS** [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlviii

  4. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlviii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    THE REPEAL OF SECTION 42 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 2005: A CHANGE TOO FAR?*

    by
    GREGORY DAS**

    1. Two seismic events occurred in the country in the middle of 2018. One was widely known but not the other. The 9th of May saw the first change of hands in the Federal Government since Independence. The lesser known event was the repeal of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (“the Act”) shortly before the general elections. The repeal did not make national headlines, however, it occasioned a sea change in the law of arbitration in the country. Much was said, both prior to and after the repeal, on the restraint the courts should exercise when reviewing arbitral awards. The question is whether the repeal as a remedy is an overkill that has upset the balance. This article proposes to argue in favour of the reinstatement of Section 42 in the Act to restore the balance.

    2. Prior to the repeal of Section 42, Sections 37 and 42 were the exclusive avenues through which a domestic arbitral award could be challenged under the Act.

    . . .

    *Published with kind permission by the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators.

    ** Vice-President, Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators; Advocate & Solicitor, High Court of Malaya.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. THE PRACTICABILITY OF WHISTLE-BLOWING IN THE NIGERIAN CORPORATE LAW JURISDICTION: AN EXAMINATION THROUGH THE STATUTES [Read excerpt]
    by Sharon T. James (Mrs.)* Peace Omotayo Adeleye** [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlvii

  6. [2019] 1 LNS(A) xlvii
    logo
    NIGERIA

    THE PRACTICABILITY OF WHISTLE-BLOWING IN THE NIGERIAN CORPORATE LAW JURISDICTION:
    AN EXAMINATION THROUGH THE STATUTES


    by
    Sharon T. James (Mrs.)*
    Peace Omotayo Adeleye**

    The Nigerian Corporate Law continues to evolve to meet the exigencies of the Nigerian Commercial cum Corporate world. Following this evolution, several measures have been put in place to combat arising corporate law challenges. These measures follow the scandals, illegalities, quagmires and unethical practices that rocked the banking sector and peradventure, lessons learnt from the International financial crisis in the American economy and other international climes. The continuous consolidation of the corporate governance laws in Nigeria to meet the needs of the Nigerian Corporate world lends credence to the above assertion. Varying industry regulators constantly put in place rules and regulations (mostly in the form of a code of conduct) to ensure effective and efficient corporate administration. Majority of the rules and regulations established have been hinged on the principles of "accountability" and "transparency". In the wake of this evolution, there has been the snowballing of varying corporate terminologies. One of such terminologies, which is the focus of this paper, is the concept of Whistle-blowing.

    . . .

    * LLM, LLB, BL. Lecturer at the Nigerian Law School Lagos Campus. 08065813497 james@lawschoollagos.org.

    ** LL.B (Babcock University), B.L (in view). The author can be contacted on peaceomotayoadeleye@gmail.com.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 812 Finance Act 2018 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 31; The Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 63; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 69; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 71; The Service Tax Act 2018 [Act 807] see s 83; The Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 91 -
ACT 811 Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (Dissolution) Act 2018 1 January 2019 [PU(B) 732/2018] -
ACT 810 Subang Golf Course Corporation Act 1968 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 26 of 1968; First Revision - 1993 (Act 509 wef 8 October 1993) -
ACT 809 Pool Betting Act 1967 (Revised 2018) 12 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 1 November 2018; First enacted in 1967 as Act of Parliament No 72 of 1967; First Revision - 1989 (Act 384 wef 21 September 1989) -
ACT 808 National Anthem Act 1968 (Revised 2018) 1 November 2018 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 15 October 2018; First enacted in 1968 as Act of Parliament No 20 of 1968; First Revision - 1989 (Act 390 wef 19 October 1989) -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1589 Co-Operative College (Incorporation) (Amendment) Act 2019 1 September 2011 - only Part II of this Act ACT A1398; ACT NO. 35 TAHUN 1968; ACT 437
ACT A1588 Street, Drainage And Building (Amendment) Act 2019 Not Yet In Force ACT 133
ACT A1587 Hire-Purchase (Amendment) Act 2019 1 March 2019 [PU(B) 117/2019] ACT 212
ACT A1586 Children And Young Persons (Employment) (Amendment) Act 2019 1 February 2019 [PU(B) 62/2019] ACT 350
ACT A1585 Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2019 1 March 2019 [PU(B) 113/2019] ACT 333

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 93/2019 Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment Of Tax) (Amendment) Order 2019 26 March 2019 27 March 2019 PU(A) 210/2018
PU(A) 92/2019 Sales Tax (Imposition Of Sales Tax In Respect Of Designated Areas) (Amendment) Order 2019 26 March 2019 27 March 2019 PU(A) 206/2018
PU(A) 91/2019 Excise Duties (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2019 26 March 2019 27 March 2019 PU(A) 444/2017
PU(A) 90/2019 Excise Duties (Tioman) (Amendment) Order 2019 26 March 2019 27 March 2019 PU(A) 242/2004
PU(A) 89/2019 Excise Duties (Labuan) (Revocation) Order 2019 26 March 2019 27 March 2019 ACT 176

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 160/2019 List Of Labuan Banks And Labuan Investment Banks Licensee Whose Licence Have Been Revoked Or Surrendered 28 March 2019 29 March 2019 ACT 704
PU(B) 159/2019 List Of Labuan Banks And Labuan Investment Banks 28 March 2019 29 March 2019 ACT 704
PU(B) 158/2019 List Of Insurance Licensees Whose Licences Have Been Revoked Or Surrendered 28 March 2019 29 March 2019 ACT 704
PU(B) 157/2019 List Of Insurance Licensees 28 March 2019 29 March 2019 ACT 704
PU(B) 156/2019 Notice Of Revision Of Supplementary Electoral Rolls 27 March 2019 28 March 2019 PU(A) 293/2002

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 210/2018 Sales Tax (Persons Exempted From Payment of Tax) Order 2018 PU(A) 93/2019 27 March 2019 Schedule A
PU(A) 206/2018 Sales Tax (Imposition of Sales Tax in Respect of Designated Areas) Order 2018 PU(A) 92/2019 27 March 2019 Paragraph 2
PU(A) 444/2017 Excise Duties (Exemption) Order 2017 PU(A) 91/2019 27 March 2019 Schedule
PU(A) 242/2004 Excise Duties (Tioman) Order 2004 PU(A) 90/2019 27 March 2019 Paragraph 2
PU(A) 239/2004 Customs Duties (Tioman) Order 2004 PU(A) 86/2019 27 March 2019 Paragraph 2

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 284/2016 Excise Duties (Labuan) Order 2016 PU(A) 89/2019 27 March 2019
PU(A) 283/2016 Excise Duties (Langkawi) Order 2016 PU(A) 88/2019 27 March 2019
PU(A) 286/2016 Customs Duties (Labuan) Order 2016 PU(A) 87/2019 27 March 2019
LN 225/1958 Births and Deaths Registration Rules 1958 PU(A) 54/2019 1 March 2019
PU(A) 356/2013 Customs (Values of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles) (Used) Order 2013 PU(B) 81/2019 1 March 2019