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 her
original 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 appellant
was 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.