Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1010
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
YEP LEE NA & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12ANCvC-222-08/2021]
A landowner's consent negates trespass claims against a defendant who has valid permission for property usage; highlights the court's ability to resolve legal questions without full trials.
Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 – Order 14A and Order 33 – Appeal against dismissal of application for determination of legal questions. The Court may determine questions of law without a full trial if suitable; valid consent by the land owner negates claims of trespass. (Paras 10-40)
(B)
Trespass – Claim based on absence of lawful permission to enter land dismissed. The Defendant had valid permission from the previous proprietor for the Substation. (Para 17)
(C)
Consent – Absence of a Certificate of Fitness for Occupation deemed irrelevant; existing consent suffices under law. (Paras 32-33)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, owners since 2010, claimed trespass against the Defendant, who had permission to construct an electricity substation on their land, originally leased by a previous proprietor.
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed; consent from the previous proprietor rendered the claim for trespass unsubstantiated.
Issues
: Whether the Defendant's entry was lawful given prior consent; effect of non-issuance of legal documents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The rule permits determination of legal questions without full trials where material facts are undisputed; consent eliminates trespass claims.
Result:
Appeal allowed, Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This was an appeal ("this Appeal") against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") in dismissing the Appellant's application under O 14A /or O 33 rr 2 and 5 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of "), all of which read:
Order 14A - Disposal of case on point of law
Rule 1 - Determination of questions of law or construction
(1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that-
(a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and
(b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein.
(2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just.
(3) The Court shall not determine any question under this Order unless the parties have had an opportunity of being heard on the question.
(4) The jurisdiction of the Court under this Order may be exercised by a Registrar.
(5) Nothing in this Order shall limit the powers of the Court under O 18, r 19 or any other provisions of these Rules.
Rule 2 - Manner in which applications under r 1 may be made
An application under r 1 may be made by a notice of application or, notwithstanding O 32, r 1, may be made orally in the course of any interlocutory application to the Court.
*********
Order 33 - Mode of trial
Rule 2 - Time of trial of questions or issues
The Court may order any question or issue arising in a cause or matter, whether of fact or law or partly of fact and partly of law, and whether raised by the pleadings or otherwise, to be tried before, at or after the trial of the cause or matter, and may give directions as to the manner in which the question or issue shall be stated.
Rule 5 - Dismissal of action after decision of preliminary issue
If it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in a cause or matter and tried separately from the cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment therein as may be just.
[2] For ease of reference, the Appellant and the First and Second Respondents will be referred to respectively as the Defendant and Plaintiffs, whilst the Third and Fourth Respondents will be referred to respectively as the Third and Fourth Parties.
The Factual Background
[3] The Plaintiffs have been the current registered proprietors of a land known as HSD 14489, PT 11940, Mukim Mentakab, Daerah Temerloh, Pahang ("the Land"), since March 2010. The Defendant, an electric utility company, had an electricity substation built on part of the Land ("the Substation") since 2007.
[4] The Third Party was the previous registered proprietor of the Land at the material time of the Defendant's entry onto the Land. In July 1996, the Fourth Party, a developer, was appointed by the Third Party pursuant to a joint venture agreement between the Third Party and Fourth Party for an industrial development on certain lots of land including the Land ("the Project").
[5] Sometime in 2005, the Fourth Party had applied for the supply of electricity to the said Project, which application had required for the Substation to be built on part of the Land, as the Substation was required for the supply of electricity for the Project. For such purpose, the Third Party, as the then registered proprietor, agreed to lease part of the Land to the Defendant for a period of 30 years from February 2006, for a nominal sum of MYR10, with an option granted to the Defendant to renew the lease for another 30 years with no payment. This lease however remained unregistered.
[6] Notwithstanding the above, the Fourth Party proceeded to build the Substation on the Land before handing it over to the Defe
