Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3235
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA TERENGGANU
KUALA IBAI PROPERTY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DATO CHANG JONG YU (ENCLS 1 & 5) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: TA-24NCVC-143-09/2020]
A claimant must prove actual loss to receive damages for wrongful caveat entries, and shareholders cannot assert caveatable interests in company assets.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 – Section 327(1) – Rules of Court 2012 – Order 18 Rule 19 – Plaintiff's application to remove caveat on lands denied due to lack of locus standi; Defendant's caveat deemed wrongful and not justified under both statutory and contractual grounds. Plaintiff's claim for damages dismissed for lack of proof despite caveats' removal. (Paras 25, 48, 62, 66)
(B) Rights related to property ownership – Establishes that caveat entries must be substantiated by legitimate claims of interest, and shareholders cannot claim caveatable rights over company property. (Paras 44, 46)
(C) Damages for unlawful acts – Courts require concrete proof of actual loss arising from wrongful caveat entries. (Paras 58, 62)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff filed this application vide encl 1 seeking for the removal of caveat entered by the Defendant on 82 pieces of land owned by Ibaimas Sdn Bhd ("Encl 1")
[2] The Defendant had, on the other hand, filed for a striking out application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012") vide encl 5 seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's Enclosure 1.
[3] The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated on 12 July 2019.
[4] Ibaimas Sdn Bhd ("Ibaimas") is a private limited company incorporated on 5 December 1991. Ibaimas' shareholder is Kuala Ibai Development Sdn Bhd and Ibaimas' directors are:
(i) Yong Tu Sang;
(ii) Yong Hin Siong; and
(iii) Yong Emmy.
[5] Ibaimas is the registered owner of the 82 lands known as Lot 5129- 5154 (PN 4932 - PN 4957), Lot 5171 - Lot 5196 (PN 4974 - PN 4999), Lot 5155 (PN 4958), Lot 5163 - Lot 5170 (PN 4966 - PN 4973), Lot 5197 - Lot 5205 (PN 5000 - PN 5009), Lot 5090 - Lot 5091 (PN 4893 - PN 4894), Lot 5102 (PN 4905) and Lot 5120 - Lot 5128 (PN 4923 - PN 4931), Mukim Bukit Besar, Kuala Terengganu ("the said Lands").
[6] The Defendant is one of the shareholders of Kuala Ibai Development.
Background Facts
[7] On 19 July 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and Supplemental Joint Venture Agreement with Ibaimas for the appointment of the Plaintiff to develop a residential development on the said Lands ("the Project").
[8] Pursuant to the Moneylending Agreement dated 9 January 2020 ("the Loan Agreement"), the Plaintiff had obtained a loan sum of RM9,000,000.00 for the purposes of construction and development of the said Project. Under the Loan Agreement, the Plaintiff was required to fully settle the said loan sum together with interest in 24 monthly instalments from the date of disbursement of the same.
[9] On or around 13 July 2020, the Plaintiff made an application to the Land Office for the conversion and subdivision of the said Lands. Subsequently, on or about 26 August 2020, the Plaintiff was informed that the Land Office was not able to accept the said application due to caveats entered by the Defendant over the said Lands.
[10] Vide land search dated 19 August 2020, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had entered the Private Caveats over the said Lands.
[11] On 3 September 2020, Syarikat Juruukur Malaysia had written to the Plaintiff informing them that the application to the Land Office for conversion and subdivision of the said Lands could not be approved due to the said Caveats entered by the Defendant.
[12] The Plaintiff was thus prevented from continuing with the development of the Project and/or complying with the terms and conditions of the JVA and Supplemental JVA.
[13] On 25 September 2020 the Plaintiff proceeded to file encl 1 in order to remove the said caveats entered by the Defendant.
[14] The Defendant had, on the other hand, filed an application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the RC 2012 vide encl 5.
[15] On 3 December 2020, the Defendant's solicitors had informed the Plaintiff's solicitors that all the caveats which were entered by the Defendant had been withdrawn by the same.
[16] Notwithstanding the Defendant's withdrawal, the Plaintiff proceeded with their claim for loss and damages suffered as a result of the Defendant's action having entered private caveat on the said Lands.
Issues To Be Determined
[17] In view of the parties' affidavits as well as their submissions in respect of encls 1 and 5, it is in my considered view that the issues arose for the determination of this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the Defendant was entitled to strike out the Plaintiff's Enclosure 1 application; (Encl 5)
(ii) Whether the Defendant had wrongfully entered the caveat on the said Lands; (Wrongful Entry of the Caveats) and
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to damages claimed against the Defendant for wrongful entry of caveat on the said Lands. (Issue of Damages)
Enclosure 5
[18] Before I proce
