QURESHI MOHAMED ASLAM v MAJLIS UGAMA ISLAM, SINGAPURA

[2026] SGCA 19 Court of Appeal 17 April 2026 CA/CA 35/2025 41 min read
22 cases cited (20 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

we dismissed the appeal.

Source: [2026] SGCA 19, Court of Appeal, decided 17 April 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court Court of Appeal
Decided
Judges Ang Cheng Hock, Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim Administrative Law
Outcome Appeal dismissed
Counsel Achievers LLC, Allen & Gledhill LLP, Aaron Lee Teck Chye, Afzal Ali, Mohamed Ibrahim s/o Mohamed Yakub, Sabrina Colette Theseira Hui Xuan

Source: [2026] SGCA 19, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

In Qureshi Mohamed Aslam v Majlis Ugama Islam, Singapura [2026] SGCA 19, the Court of Appeal — comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Ang Cheng Hock JCA, and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD — dismissed an appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant permission for judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Board constituted under s 55 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966. The appellant, Mr Qureshi Mohamed Aslam, had been the defendant in Syariah Court divorce proceedings brought by his first wife, and he challenged the Board's decision on the ground that it had breached a duty to give reasons. Ang Cheng Hock JCA delivered the grounds of decision on 17 April 2026 following a hearing on 27 February 2026, with Mohamed Ibrahim s/o Mohamed Yakub of Achievers LLC appearing for the appellant and a team from Allen & Gledhill LLP — Aaron Lee Teck Chye, Afzal Ali, and Sabrina Colette Theseira Hui Xuan — appearing for MUIS.

[2026] SGCA 19 explained

QURESHI MOHAMED ASLAM v MAJLIS UGAMA ISLAM, SINGAPURA ([2026] SGCA 19) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 17 April 2026. It is categorised under Administrative Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGCA 19 about?

QURESHI MOHAMED ASLAM v MAJLIS UGAMA ISLAM, SINGAPURA ([2026] SGCA 19) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Administrative Law — Judicial review — Duty to give reasons — Whether there was a breach of a duty to give reasons”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 19 consider?

The judgment refers to Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 19 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 62, [2025] SGHC(A) 26, and [2025] SGHC 142. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

What did the Court of Appeal decide in Qureshi Mohamed Aslam v MUIS regarding judicial review of the AMLA Appeal Board ([2026] SGCA 19)?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 17 April 2026, upholding the High Court's refusal to grant permission for judicial review. The court found no breach of a duty to give reasons by the Appeal Board constituted under s 55 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (22)

SLR (17)
[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 [2012] 1 SLR 676 [2012] 4 SLR 947 [2013] 2 SLR 844 [2015] 4 SLR 1043 [2015] 4 SLR 438 [2015] 5 SLR 1222 [2016] 1 SLR 1218 [2016] 3 SLR 135 [2016] 3 SLR 598 [2017] 1 SLR 609 [2018] 2 SLR 1378 [2019] 2 SLR 216 [2021] 1 SLR 809 [2022] 1 SLR 1033 [2024] 2 SLR 317
UK (2)
[1991] 4 All ER 310 [2009] 3 All ER 539

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 19)