Back
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
CARA KAYA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
EXCELRUN SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties have a legal dispute over property use. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. plaintiff claims beneficial ownership of parcel b. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. trustee obligations not applicable to current case. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. previous approvals do not bind future decisions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. mutual covenants govern property use agreement. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. ongoing duties under sale and purchase agreement. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. legal requirements for planning permission addressed. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 8. defendant's obligations to enforce covenants affirmed. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. no breach established; plaintiff's claims dismissed. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 10. claim for damages lacks sufficient evidence. (Para 44 , 46) |
[1] Both parties agreed that their dispute could be determined by the Court on questions of law/construction of documents without a trial pursuant to O 14A of the Rules of Court 2012.
[2] These were the questions:
(i) whether the Plaintiff as purchaser of Parcel B within the Lintas Station building is legally entitled to change the use of Parcel B without the agreement and/or approval from the Defendan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
