Background

In May 2025, the Court of Appeal in Md Isa bin Bujang v PL Soon Huat Realty Sdn Bhd and others (Civil Appeal No.: K-01(NCvC)(A)-191-04/2023), dismissed three related appeals concerning the validity of the revocation of Malay Reserve Land (“MRL”) status in Langkawi. Our case note on the Court of Appeal’s decision can be read here.

In this case, the Appellants had contended that the revocation of the MRL status of the subject lands contravened Article 89 of the Federal Constitution, given that the land in question had been declared MRL in 1933, before Merdeka on 31 August 1957. The Court of Appeal held otherwise, affirming the High Court’s decision that the revocation and swapping process was validly carried out pursuant to the Kedah Malay Reservations Enactment 1930 (“MRE”).

Federal Court Decision

On 18 September 2025, the Appellant’s application for leave to appeal was heard before a panel comprising YA Dato’ Nordin bin Hassan, FCJ, YA Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh, FCJ and YA Dato’ Lee Swee Seng, FCJ.

In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court dismissed the leave application, holding that: 

1. The case revolved around the assessment of facts and application of existing laws. The application of the provisions of the MRE was clear, particularly in light of Articles 89(1) and 162(1) of the Federal Constitution. 
2. The issues raised were governed by the MRE, and no novel issue of public importance or advantage arose. The Applicant also failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of success. The threshold under Section 96(a) and (b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 was therefore not met. 

Implications

With the Federal Court’s dismissal of leave, the Appellant’s appellate avenues are exhausted. The Court of Appeal’s decision, which upheld the revocation of MRL status and confirmed that the MRE remains operative as “existing law” under Article 162(1) of the Federal Constitution, is now final and binding.

This case reinforces the following principles: 

1. The MRE continues to govern the declaration and revocation of Malay Reserve Land in Kedah unless and until it is replaced by a new State Enactment. 
2. Arguments premised on Article 89(1) Federal Constitution will not displace the continuing operation of pre-Merdeka legislation saved by Article 162(1) of the Federal Constitution. 
3. Allegations concerning the “similar character” of swapped lands or subsequent ownership by non-Malays do not, in themselves, invalidate a revocation or declaration properly effected under the MRE.

Our Ms Claudia Cheah and Ms Aufa Radzi acted as counsel for the 2nd Respondent in this case.