Latheefa Koya

On the court record

A constitutional and public-law practice in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Latheefa Koya appears in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions describe a practice centred on constitutional and public law. Constitutional-law questions recur, and the matters engage the interpretation of statutory provisions against the framework of the Federal Constitution, including questions about the validity and reach of legislative provisions.

A distinctive procedural strand concerns the powers of the appellate court itself: the reported matters raise whether the Court of Appeal can strike out an appeal, and what consequences follow once it has done so — a question about the scope of the appellate court's power to dispose of a matter without a full hearing on the merits. Appearing as appellant, plaintiff and respondent, the practice is instructed in matters where a point of constitutional or public-law principle is in issue rather than a purely private dispute.

The work turns on questions of law rather than on primary fact-finding. In the constitutional matters the argument concerns whether a statutory provision is consistent with the Constitution and how it should be construed; in the appellate-procedure matters it concerns the limits of the court's power to strike out an appeal and the effect of doing so. The reported reasons address the gateways and powers that determine whether a public-law argument is heard and decided on its merits.

The overall profile is a constitutional and public-law practice conducted at first instance and on appeal in the Court of Appeal. The matters turn on the interpretation of statute against the Federal Constitution and on the powers of the appellate court, rather than on commercial or criminal questions, marking a practice engaged with questions of constitutional principle and the procedure by which such questions reach a final decision. The appearances on different sides of the record reflect a practice instructed for the point of principle at stake rather than tied to a single class of litigant.