P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!

1. 1
Section 5 –
(Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts)
I. THE PROVISION
A. ACTUAL PROVISION
“Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-
existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter
declared to be relevant, and of no others.”
Explanation--This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a
fact which he is disentitled to prove by the law relating to civil procedure.
B. FUNGSI SECTION 5
1. Ensuring irrelevant and unconnected evidence is prohibited from being
given in a judicial proceeding so that the court’s time is saved and miscarriage
of justice is avoided
II. TYPE OF FACTS RELEVANT UNDER SEC. 5
A. FACTS IN ISSUE
B. RELEVANT FACTS1
Sec Content
6 Facts forming part of same transaction
7 Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue
8 Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
9 Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts
10 Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design
11 When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant
12 In suits for damages facts tending to enable court to determine
amount
13 Facts which are relevant when right or custom is in question
1 IOW, Other Facts As Are Hereinafter Declared to Be Relevant

2. 2
14 Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling
15 Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional
16 Existence of course of business
17,23,31 Admissions
24-30 Confessions
32,33,73A Statements By Persons Who Cannot Be Called As Witnesses
34-38 Statements Made Under Special Circumstances
39 How Much Of A Statement To Be Proved
40-44 Judgments Of Courts When Relevant
45-51 Opinions Of Third Persons When Relevant
52-55 Character When Relevant
C. EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE ( PEMBANGUNAN MAHA MURNI SDN
BHD V JURURUS LADAND SDN BHD)
1. General rule : all facts issue and relevant facts must be proved by
evidence
2. Exceptions : there are 2 classes of facts which need not be proved
a) Facts judicially noticed
b) Facts admitted
3. Such exceptions are incorporated in Section 56-58 of EA under the
title “ Facts which need not be proved”
III. S. 5 SHOULD BE READ WITH S. 136
A. ACTUAL PROVISION S.136
“When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the court may ask the party
proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be
relevant; and the court shall admit the evidence if it thinks that the fact, if proved,
would be relevant, and not otherwise”

3. 3
B. WHY SEC. 136 ?
1. By the virtue of the words “if it thinks”, Section 136 gives to the court
the discretionary power to ask a party tendering evidence of a particular fact to
show how the fact if proved would be relevant, and the evidence can be
admitted only if the court is satisfied that it is relevant
2. IOW2, relevancy is precondition to make the evidence admissible
before the court
3. Dalam masa yang sama juga, meskipun sesuatu fakta tu relevan tapi
mahkamah ada kuasa untuk tidak menerima masuk fakta yang relevan
a) Contoh: keterangan saksi di tempat kejadian (direct evidence)
adalah relevan tapi bila kredibiliti saksi itu dicabar bawah seksyen 155
EA 1950, mahkamah boleh x nak terima masuk keterangan dia
C. CASES
Case Held/ Important points
PP v DSAI3
(NO.3)
1999-2 MLJ
1
1. Admissibility of evidence are questions of law and are determinable by
the judge.
2. By the virtue of Sec 5, a party to a suit/proceeding is entitled to give
evidence of only facts which are declared relevant under the provisions
of the Evidence Act 1950. The judge is empowered to allow only such
evidence to be given as is, in his opinion, relevant and admissible and in
order to ascertain the relevancy of the evidence which a party proposes
to give, the judge may ask the party proposing to give evidence, in what
manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant, and he may then
decide as to its admissibility
2 In other words
3 Dato seri anwar ibrahim

4. 4
My own words: judge yang akan tentukan facts apa yg relevan bawah
akta ni dan dalam usaha dia nak tentukan tu, dia kena minta peguam
buktikan keterangan tu relevan bawah seksyen mana, tu jehh
3. Isu yang timbul ialah>> whether this power can be exercised by the
court before a proposed witness begins to give evidence
Held: the court can exercise the power given by the subsection when a
party wishes/proposes to call a witness, IOW, before a proposed
witness begins to give evidence.
Muthusamy
v PP
[1948]4
1. It is the duty of the advocate to prepare his case with due regard to the
real issues and with special care for the law of evidence.
2. If he cannot show tersely that a proposed question is relevant he cannot
complain if the Magistrate promptly excludes it under section 5 which
provides that evidence may be given of legally relevant facts "and of no
others". These words are mandatory.
Goh Beng
Seng v Dol
B. Abdullah
Memang tugas mahkamah untuk menerima keterangan yang relevan sahaja
meskipun peguam gagal untuk membantah penerimaan masuk keterangan
yang tidak relevan
D. PERANAN MAHAKAMAH DLM ASPEK KEBOLEHTERIMAAN KETERANGAN
1. Ask the counsel to prove the fact is relevant under which provision
2. Lepas tu tentukan boleh terima atau tidak
4 Kes muthusamy fokus tugas peguam, in contrast kes goh beng fokus tugas mahkamah

5. 5
IV. PRINCIPLES FOR “RELEVANCY VS. ADMISSIBILITY”
A. ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE ARE PRIMA FACIE ADMISSIBLE
1. Prinsip ni ada sebab dalam sek 5 ada perkataan “of not others”,
maksudnya selain daripada fakta relevan x boleh diterima masuk
2. Cases:
Cases 5 Held
R V Turner
[1975]
Facts Murder case- psychiatrist is called as a witness to testify the mental
capacity of the accused
Held  Although expert opinion is a relevant fact, it’s not
automatically becomes admissible, in this case the opinion is
inadmissible because mahkamah kata dia x perlukan bantuan
pakar-mahkamah boleh decide sendiri
 IOW, hearsay n opinion are relevant tapi kalau mhkmh ada
sebab x nak ambik dua2 ni sbg keterangan, boleh jehhh
Makin v AG
For New
South Wales
[1894]
 Principle: In criminal cases, evidence of previous acts or conduct not
covered by the charge for which the accused is being tried is
INADMISSIBLE.
 Prinsip yang terpakai dekat kes jenayah ni terpakai juga dalam kes sivil as
decided in the case of R v Bond, that the evidence must confined to the point
in issue.
 Maksudnya kat sini previous conduct is relevant at the first instance but since
it has prejudicial effect against the accuse so it is inadmissible
R v.
Kilbourne
[1973]
 Kes ni terangkan sebab previous conduct is inadmissible
 Held : previous conduct is inadmissible not because it is irrelevant, but
because it will prejudice to the accused, so that a fair trial is endangered
if it is admitted; the law therefore exceptionally excludes this relevant
evidence
5 Sisturr, dalam slides punya iols susah nak paham penerangan pasal fungsi setiap kes2 ni so iols refer buku
Augustine Paul kays

6. 6
B. NOT ALL ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS ALWAYS RELEVANT
1. R v Kilbourne [1973] :
a) Not all admissible evidence is universally relevant. IOW,
admissible evidence may be relevant to one count of an indictment and
not to another.
b) It may be admissible against one accused (or party) but not
another.
c) It may be admissible to rebut a defence but inadmissible to
reinforce the case for the prosecution.
C. AS LONG AS THE EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT, THE COURT MUST ADMIT IT
Note: kes2 ni kena ikut turutan sebab it supports one another 
No Concepts Sources
1 Court is not concerned on the manner the evidence is obtained or the
time as long as it is relevant because the precondition of admissibility
is relevancy not how the evidence is obtained (held by Privy Council)
Kuruma v The
Queen [1955]
2 Therefore, Court has no discretion to reject relevant evidence on the
basis that is it improperly or unfairly obtained
How Poh Sun
V PP [1991]
3 However, Court has discretion to disallow evidence in criminal cases
if strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the
accused
 Contoh: if some admission of evidence, e.g. a document, had
been obtained from the defendant by a trick, no doubt the
judge might properly rule it out.
PP v Haji
Kassim
[1971]

7. 7
V. OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE6
A. DUTY OF COURT
1. PP v DSAI : it is duty of the court to disallow all inadmissible evidence
2. Ram Keshan v Ramsohaj: the judge having refused to accept the
evidence in the first instance, he has no jurisdiction to take them again into the
consideration unless some explanation could be given by the plaintiffs
B. FAILURE TO OBJECT
1. The effect of failure to object to the admissibility of evidence depends
on whether the evidence was in the first place admissible or not
2. Example in the case of Malaysia National Insurance Sdn Bhd v
Malaysia Rubber Development Corporation [1986], the court held hearsay
evidence which ought to have been rejected does not become admissible
merely because no objection was taken earlier
6 Maksudnya ground of objections yang boleh digunakan untuk kata mahkamah salah dalam menerima masuk
sesuatu keterangan