Back
2021 MarsdenLR 427
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
MERANTI JAYA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENTADBIR TANAH BATU PAHAT (ENCL 1) – Respondent
[Judicial Application Review No: JB-25-4-09/2020]
Strict compliance with procedural requirements for judicial review applications is mandatory, and failure to adhere to timeframes leads to dismissal of the application.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Review – Order 53 Rules of 2012 – Application for leave for judicial review against a decision of the respondent to acquire land – The application was dismissed based on failure to comply with procedural requirements, particularly the limitation period. The court underlined that strict compliance with O 53 (r 3) is mandatory, illustrated by cases such as Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kamaman & Anor [2015] 2 AMR 89 and Abdul Rahman Bin Abdullah Munir & Ors v. Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor [2008] 6 MLJ 704. (Paras 10, 63, 66, 71)
Facts of the case: The applicant, a housing developer, sought judicial review of a land acquisition decision, claiming procedural unfairness following purported advice from the respondent. The application was filed significantly after the established limitation period.
Findings of Court: The Court determined that strict adherence to the procedural requirements is crucial, and non-compliance would preclude any consideration of the application.
Issues: The core issues revolved around the timeliness of the application and the locus standi of the applicant in seeking judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment reinforced that judicial review is not a means to challenge the merits of the decision but to scrutinize the decision-making process; as such, procedural adherence is paramount.
Result: The application for leave for judicial review was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 1)
Introduction
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to O 53 Rule 4 Rules of Courts 2012 of the decision of the Respondent to acquire 287 lots of residential land for the development belonging to Kimsan Housing Development Sdn Bhd.
[2] The Cause Papers are as follows:
i. Notice of Application for Judicial Review pursuant to O 53 Rule 4 Rules of 2012 (encl 1).
ii. Statement of facts pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) Rules of Courts 2012 .
iii. Affidavit-in-support affirmed by Lai Hee Sang on behalf of the the Applicant dated 7 September 2020.
iv. Amended Notice of Application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 r 4 Rules of 2012 (encl 10).
Background Facts
[3] The Applicant is a company incorporated pursuant to the Companies Act 1965 and the main business is housing developer. The Applicant was said to acquire 3 pieces of land that are held under the Titles as follows:
i. HS(M) 948, Lot 9407
ii. EMR 7985, Lot 9367
iii. EMR 7986, Lot 9368
(all of Sri Medan Sub District, District of Batu Pahat, in the State of Johore hereinafter shall be referred to "the 3 lots of land")
[4] On 3 August 2004, the registered owner of the 3 lots of land which is trading by the name and style of Kimsan Housing development Sdn Bhd (Company No 69608-P) was said to sign a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Applicant on the 3 lots of land. The full purchase price was said to have been paid by the Applicant.
[5] On 8 July 1996, the office of the Director of Land and Mineral, Johore has given consent for the sub-division of the 3 lots of land into 287 residential lot units for the housing estate known as Taman Sri Medan. All these Titles were in the name of Kimsan Housing Development Sdn Bhd.
[6] On 20 October 2007 the Respondent Gazetted the acquisition of the 24 lots of land in Sri Medan Sub District, District of Batu Pahat, in the State of Johore. These includes SM5918 PTD9114, HSM5632 PTD 8825, HSM5634, PTD 8827, HSM 5637 until 5657 PTD8830 until PTD 8836 (Hereinafter shall be referred to the "24 Lots of Land").
[7] On 28 December 2010 the Respondent issued a letter to Kimsan Housing Development Sdn Bhd offering the said 24 lots of Land to be alienated again subject to certain conditions. The Letter of offer showed an arrears of Land Taxes from 208 until 2010. Kimsan Housing Development Sdn Bhd paid the arrears in taxes by way od cheques:
i. Eon Bank Cheque No 094622 dated 1 April 2011 amounting RM6,260-00.
ii. Eon Bank Cheque No 094623 dated 1 May 2011 amounting to RM6,260-00.
iii. Eon Bank Cheque No 094624 dated 1 June 2011 amounting to RM6,260-00.
iv. Eon Bank Cheque No 094625 dated 1 July 2011 amounting to RM6,260-00.
v. Eon Bank Cheque No 094626 dated 1 August 2011 amounting to RM6,216-00.
vi. Hong Leong Bank Cheque No 004273 dated 6 December 2019 amounting RM25,704-00.
[8] The Applicant alleged that the Respondent gave an advice to the Applicant to file a civil action to set aside the Gazette and the alleged advice was given on 4 June 2020.
[9] The expiry of the alleged date of filing was said to be 4 September 2020 which was a Friday, a weekend public holiday in Johore and hence the next date was 6 September 2020 (Sunday) but the Solicitors for the Applicant are closed on Sundays.
[10] Pursuant to O 53 r 4, the Applicant served the Cause Papers on the Attorney-General's Chambers who raised a Preliminary Objection against the Application on 2 grounds which are:
i. The application has been caught by limitation pursuant to Order 53 Rule.
ii. The Applicant has no locus standi.
The Law On Judicial Review
[11] Judicial Review is provided for under O 53 Rules of 2012.
[12] Historically, the basis for judicial review of acts and decisions of public authorities has been the doctrine of ultra vires of excess of jurisdiction. The role of the Court is to keep bodies within their allocated authority of jurisdiction. In judicial review, the Court is concerned with the decision-making process and not with the merits of the
