Functus Officio sepertimana definisi di dalam kes Lim Hung Wang & Ors v. PP [2011] 1 MLRH:-
(vii) The Oxford Companion to Law (1980) at p 508 provides the following definition of functus officio : functus officio (having performed his function). Used of an agent who has performed his task and exhausted his authority and of an arbitrator to whom further resort is incompetent, his function being exhausted.
Walaubagaimanapun, terdapat pengecualian kepada functus officio iaitu merujuk kepada Aturan 20 Kaedah 11 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 yang menyatakan seperti berikut:
“11. Pindaan penghakiman dan perintah (A. 20 k. 11)
Kesilapan perkeranian dalam penghakiman atau perintah, atau ralat yang berbangkit di dalamnya daripada apa-apa keciciran atau peninggalan tidak sengaja, boleh pada bila-bila masa diperbetulkan oleh Mahkamah melalui suatu notis permohonan tanpa rayuan.”
Merujuk kepada aturan ini, Mahkamah yang Mulia ini mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk memberikan apa-apa perintah berkaitan apa peninggalan untuk melindungi parti yang berkenaan.
Ini boleh juga dilihat di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Sang Lee Company Sdn Bhd & Ors V. Munusamy Karuppiah [2010] 5 CLJ 229
“[8] A related issue which is raised in this appeal is the question of whether the court is functus officio when it purports to rectify and amend the sealed order to reflect what was actually pronounced. We are of the view in the light of a clear difference and discrepancy between the terms of the sealed order as compared with the actual order pronounced by the learned JC1 on 27 June 2006, it was only right and proper that the sealed order be amended accordingly pursuant to O. 20 r. 11 of the RHC 1980. Order 20 r. 11 of the RHC 1980
0 komen:
Dah baca sila bagi sepatah kata..