(New users only) It's tax relief season! Get up to RM300 when you save with Versa! Plus, enjoy an additional FREE RM10 when you sign up using code VERSAMM10 with a min. cash-in of RM100 today. T&Cs apply. Tuesday, 19 May 2026 11:19 AM MYT MAY 19 -- In “DKU is the appropriate body to decide on the appointment of an Undang” and “Lawyers may misuse legal history, but not Salleh Abas” I referred to the Federal Court case of Dato Menteri Othman bin Baginda & Anor v Dato Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29. In that case, five eminent judges of the apex court delivered five separate judgments.Those were the days, as they say.But hold on. There were not five but six eminent judges who delivered separate judgments, if one were to include the Federal Court Judge who sat as the High Court Judge.The case originated in the High Court. Federal Court Judge Abdul Hamid (as he then was) who sat as a High Court Judge dismissed the contention that the High Court had no jurisdiction over a matter related to purely question of adat and customs of the Malays in the Luak of Jelebu.The decision was appealed against. In the days before the Court of Appeal was established in 1994, the appeal came before the Federal Court.The Federal Court sat with a coram of five, namely (in order of seniority) Lord President Suffian, Acting Lord President and Chief Justice of Malaya Raja Azlan Shah, Federal Court Judge Salleh Abas, Federal Court Judge Ibrahim Manan and High Court Judge Hashim Yeop A Sani.His Highness Raja Azlan Shah went on to succeed Suffian as Lord President. Salleh Abas succeeded His Highness. Abdul Hamid in turn succeeded Salleh Abas as Lord President. Meanwhile, Hashim Yeop A Sani later became Chief Justice of Malaya.They were the who’s who of the Malaysian Judiciary.Now, how did they decide on the case?As mentioned earlier, Abdul Hamid held that the court had jurisdiction. It is a challenge to the current judiciary to bring back those days. — Pexels pic Raja Azlan Shah held, among others, that the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) was a far more suitable forum for discharging the function in relation to the appointment of an Undang and it was open to the courts to refuse remedy on the ground that it was forum non conveniens – that is, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that another body would be more appropriate.Salleh Abas held, among others, that the court had no jurisdiction. So did Ibrahim Manan, while Hashim Yeop A Sani held that the DKU must be regarded as the custodian of the adat in Negeri Sembilan and that the advice of the DKU in the matter of adat must be regarded as binding and conclusive.The most senior judge and head of the judiciary, Suffian, however, dissented, holding that there was nothing in the Constitution, State or Federal, ousting the court’s jurisdiction over a disputed election of an Undang and that the court had jurisdiction on the matter.The case is a throwback to the days when courageous and fair-minded judges sat in the chambers of justice, instilling confidence in the judicial system. Those were the days when judges strived relentlessly to dispense justice in accordance with the rule of law, and nothing else.It is a challenge to the current judiciary to bring back those days.* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.