1. ) LIM YONG KIM 2. ) LEONG SIEW CHAN (P) 3. ) LIM YONG KIM (WAKIL LITIGASI KEPADA LIM WEI QI BELUM DEWASA) v 1. ) Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri 2. ) PENDAFTAR BESAR KELAHIRAN DAN KEMATIAN JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA MALAYSIA

jb-24ncvc-308-06-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 17 November 2025 • JB-24NCvC-308-06/2024 • 9 min read
6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Outcome

In the upshot, for all the reasons above, I dismiss this Originating Summons with no order as to costs.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (jb-24ncvc-308-06-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (4)

Case Significance

A citizenship claim for an illegitimate, adopted child dismissed on the principle that citizenship by operation of law is fixed at birth and an adoption order has no retrospective effect on legitimacy or citizenship.

This High Court decision concerns an application by originating summons for a declaration that a minor is a Malaysian citizen by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, read with section 1(a) of Part II and section 19B of Part III of the Second Schedule. The applicants sought citizenship for the third applicant, a child, and the case brought together two distinct questions about the citizenship status of an illegitimate child and the effect of an adoption.

The first question was whether a child who was illegitimate at the time of birth qualifies for citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b). Citizenship by operation of law is determined by the facts existing at the moment of birth, and the constitutional provisions governing it — including the presumption in section 19B — must be satisfied as at that time. The second question concerned adoption: whether the making of an adoption order entitles the adopted child to be registered as a Malaysian citizen as of right or by operation of law. The Court's analysis rested on the principle that an adoption order does not have retrospective effect on legitimacy or citizenship status; adoption changes the child's legal parentage for the future but does not rewrite the citizenship position fixed at birth, nor does it confer citizenship automatically. Citizenship acquired by operation of law is a matter of constitutional fact, not a consequence that an adoption order can supply.

The Court held that the applicants had not made out the child's entitlement to citizenship by operation of law and dismissed the originating summons with no order as to costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the principle that citizenship by operation of law is fixed by the circumstances at birth, and that an adoption order, having no retrospective effect on legitimacy, does not of itself entitle an adopted child to Malaysian citizenship.

What two questions did the application raise?

Whether a child illegitimate at birth qualifies for citizenship by operation of law under Article 14(1)(b), and whether the making of an adoption order entitles the adopted child to be registered as a Malaysian citizen as of right or by operation of law.

How did the Court decide?

The Court held that citizenship by operation of law is fixed by the circumstances at birth and that an adoption order has no retrospective effect on legitimacy or citizenship, so it does not confer citizenship automatically; the applicants had not established entitlement, and the originating summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Statutes Cited

Federal Constitution
Art 31

Cases Cited (6)

MY (6)
[2017] 7 CLJ 33 [2018] 1 MLJ 307 [2021] 6 CLJ 471 [2022] 1 CLJ 1 [2022] MLJU 2237 [2023] MLJU 2486

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (jb-24ncvc-308-06-2024)