A dissolved company lacks legal standing to initiate actions in court, and can only be revived under specific statutory provisions.

[1] By an application in Enclosure 6, the defendant seeks to set aside an ex-parte order granted by the Court on 7 August 2012 extending the validity of a private caveat entered on land known as Geran 133275 Lot 5334, Mukum Lumut, Daerah Manjung Perak ("the said land").

[2] The salient facts leading to the application are as follows. The said land has a long history dating back to 1940 and I do not propose to dwell into that. It would suffice to state that the plaintiff claims to be the beneficial owner of the said land by virtue of a sale and purchase agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant sometime in 1977. A private caveat was lodged on the plaintiff company's behalf by its director on the said land on 30 March 2011. Upon receiving a notice of intended removal in the form of Form 19C from the land office, the plaintiff filed and obtained an ex-parte order from the Court to extend the validity of the caveat for a period of six months. The defendant has now filed this application in Enclosure 6 to set aside that ex-parte order. Several grounds were raised in support of the application.

[3] The plaintiff nevertheless raised an objection as to the locus standi of the defendant company to file this application. There was unrebutted evidence in the form of a Companies Commission of Malaysia ("CCM") search which showed the defendant company to have been "dissolved". No evidence to the contrary was provided by the defendant despite being given the opportunity to do so. There was some evidence that the defendant company went into voluntary liquidation in 1978. In all probability, once the liquidation process was over the defendant company would have been dissolved. It was unfortunate that there were no records in the CCM to show when the company was dissolved. The last record shows the names of directors who are different from the persons now claiming to be directors.