Back
2025 MarsdenLR 324
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PAN FEI YOONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BNCvC-168-12/2023]
The Electricity Supply Act 1990 does not permit claims for interest on late payment of compensation awarded for land usage, establishing that compensation is solely for disturbance and not for loss of use of funds.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Section 11 and 16 - Civil Law Act 1956 - Claim for interest on late payment of compensation for land usage - Appellants, as joint owners of land, sought interest for late payment after compensation was awarded and paid - Sessions Court found no legal basis for such claim under ESA - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 19, 20)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proof lies with the Appellants to establish their claim on a balance of probabilities, which they failed to do. (Paras 9, 20)
Facts of the case:
The Appellants were awarded RM700,758.00 for land usage under the ESA, which they rejected, later receiving an additional 20% increment. They sought interest for late payment, claiming the Respondent's delay. (Paras 3, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court ruled that the ESA did not provide for interest on late payments and the Appellants' claim was an abuse of process. The Court affirmed this ruling. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Appellants had the right to claim interest for late payment and the legal basis for such a claim under the ESA. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the ESA did not empower the imposition of interest for late payment, the Appellants had no legal grounds for their claim. The compensation was solely for disturbance and not for loss of use of funds. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00 awarded to the Respondent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final ruling and costs awarded (Para 1 , 22) |
| 2. factual background of land compensation (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. sessions court's findings on claim validity (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments regarding interest claims (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's reasoning on statutory limitations (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
Decision
[1] On 19 February 2025 having found no merits in the Appellants' arguments, this Court dismissed their appeal with costs of RM10,000.00. This Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court that dismissed the Appellants' claim in its entirety with costs of RM 15,000.00. The Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal. Iterated below are this Court's reasons for dismissing the appeal.
The Background Facts
[2] The Appellants are the joint registered owners of a piece of land under the title GM3388, Lot 5570, Mukim Bentong, District of Bentong, Pahang. On 11 March 2013 the Respondent issued a notice to the Appellants under s 11 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ( ESA ) to construct and erect poles or towers and operate electrical supply lines on the said land to supply electricity to the public at large.
[3] A hearing on the appropriate compensation payment concerning the Respondent's entry and usage of the land under ESA was conducted. On 26 November 2014 the Land Administrator of Bentong awarded a sum of RM700,758.00 to the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the amount, the Appellants appealed. On 8 May 2015 the Respondent issued 4 cheques to the total amount of the award. However, the Appellants rejected and refused to accept the payment made by the Respondent.
[4] On 10 August 2015 pursuant to the Appellants' appeal, the Land Administrator of Bentong ordered an additional 20% (10% +10%) increase in the land compensation value from the original payment given to the Appellants.
[5] That additional payment that the Respondent was required to the Appellants was in the amount of RM74,692.80 - as evident by the letters dated 10 August 2015 and 4 December 2018 issued by the Land Office of Bentong.
[6] Pursuant to a Summary Judgment Order dated 10 August 2020 granted by the High Court in Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-805-11/2018, the Respondent made full payment of the original award amounting to RM700,758.00 on 7 October 2020.
[7] Thus, the case before Sessions Court pursued by the Appellants was for the interests of late payment made by the Respondent. The Appellants sought that interest for late payment be imposed to be calculated from 1 month after the date of the initial award by the Land Administrator of Bentong on 26 November 2014.
[8] In determining whether it was legally justified for the Appellants to claim interest and/or damages based on the original compensation of RM700,758.00 which has been awarded and paid through the execution of the Summary Judgment dated 10 August 2020, a full trial was conducted before the Sessions Court.
Ruling Of The Sessions Court
[9] The burden of proof for this claim rested on the Appellants (see Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Marwin Industries Sdn Bhd ; ). The Appellants needed to establish their case and introduce evidence to support it. The Sessions Court found that they had failed to prove their claim on a balance of probabilities as first of all no provision in ESA grant them the right to claim interest for late payment of award related to land usage. So, the suit amounted to an abuse of the Court process as it was an attempt with no basis in law.
[10] The Sessions Court had also ruled that the award by the Land Administrator of Bentong was confined solely to the amount of RM700,758.00. There was no award/order/direction of payment of interest for late payment of the award. It decided on the facts before it and the law that the Appellants had no legal basis to invoke s 11 Civil Law Act 1956 ( CLA ) to claim interest for late payment over and above the award granted by the State Authority under ss 11 and 16 ESA as does not permit the App
