Back
2020 MarsdenLR 945
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
TATALAAN PLANTATION & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
BARAHIM ANDIPOH & ORS (ENCL 9) – Respondent
[Case No: BKI-22NCvC-28/3-2019]
An interim injunction should maintain the status quo and requires valid contractual agreements and governmental approvals; unjust delays weaken a plaintiff's case for relief.
Headnote:(A) Government Proceedings Act 1956 – Section 29 – Application for interim injunction – Plaintiffs sought injunction against the 2nd Defendant from trespassing and interfering in land held under Communal Title – Court examined validity of Joint Venture and Logging Agreements and lack of necessary approvals – Court found serious issues to be tried but ruled greater injustice would be suffered by the 2nd Defendant if the injunction was granted – Application dismissed with costs. (Paras 11, 12, 20)
(B) Principles of interim injunction – A judge must identify whether there's a bona fide serious issue, weigh the harm to parties, and maintain the status quo while addressing practical realities – Delay in application without reasonable explanation was pertinent. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case: The dispute arose over land where Plaintiffs claimed rights through agreements with multiple beneficiaries, yet lacked necessary governmental approvals and a binding agreement as many beneficiaries did not sign.
Findings of Court: The Plaintiffs failed to establish a binding agreement due to lack of full consent, and the absence of government approval rendered the agreements invalid. Plaintiffs' unreasonable delay in filing was noted.
Issues: Whether the agreements were legally binding and whether the application for injunction was timely and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an injunction would unjustly affect the 2nd Defendant given the invalidity of the agreements and the potential for harm to the status quo, which should have been maintained. (Paras 12-18)
Result: Plaintiffs' application dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 9)
[1] By this application for an interim injunction (Encl 9), the Plaintiffs are applying for, inter alia;
(i) An order that the 2nd Defendant be restrained, whether by itself, or by its servants or agents or otherwise from and to prevent them from committing a repetition thereof, inducing or producing breaches of unlawfully interfering in the Joint Venture Agreement and Logging Agreement between the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant and all the Beneficiaries of the Communal Title Field Register No 154000683, District of Nabawan, Pensiangan, Sabah until the full and final determination of the trial herein and any appeals therefrom;
(ii) An order that the 2nd Defendant be restrained, whether by itself, or by its servants or agents or otherwise, from trespassing, entering the land or carrying out clearing, cutting or collection of timbers or timbers residues or trees held under Communal Title Field Register No 154000683, District of Nabawan, Pensiangan, Sabah and continuing to carry out the clearing, cutting and collecting of timber residues or trees of the said land until the full and final determination of the trial herein and any appeals therefrom;
(iii) An injunction against the 2nd Defendant, whether by itself, or by its servants or agents or otherwise whomsoever from in any way howsoever and whensoever interfering with and disturbing the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs or any of them of their respective rights, titles and interest in and over the land held under Communal Title Field Register No 154000683 and/or in any way whatsoever impeding, frustrating and/or creating or causing difficulties to the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs or any of them in their use, occupation and development of and/or their dealings on the said land;
Brief Background
[2] The disputes between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants involve a parcel of land held under Communal Title Field Registry No 154000683 ("the Land").
[3] Under the title deed to the Land, the owner of the Land is the Collector as trustee. In the title deed, there is also a list of beneficiaries stated. Ostensibly there are 475 listed beneficiaries. However, most of the beneficiaries are listed in pairs which means that there are more than 800 beneficiaries listed out in the title deed to the Land. See "LKS-01" in the Affidavit in Support (encl 10) ("AIS").
[4] In the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs pleaded that they have entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 23 May 2018 and a Logging Agreement dated 23 May 2018 with the 1st Defendant as Chairman of the AJK of the Beneficiaries: see paras 10 and 14 of the Statement of Claim.
[5] The Plaintiffs say that the 1st Defendant is being sued on his own behalf as well as on behalf of and as representing all the Beneficiaries of the Land: See para 3 of the Statement of Claim.
[6] The Plaintiff also pleaded that the 1st Defendant and the Beneficiaries knew or ought to have known the Agreements "would be binding and of legal effect when all (100%) percent of the Beneficiaries have signed": See para 12 of the Statement of Claim.
[7] There is no dispute that the Agreements were not entered into with the Collector as the owner of the Land.
[8] There is also no dispute that there was no direction or decision from the Director of Lands and Surveys for the Plaintiffs to enter into the Agreements with the Beneficiaries or the 1st Defendant nor any approval from the Director of Lands and Surveys for any dealings in respect of the Land.
Principles on Interim Injunction
[9] In Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah , at 206-7; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373, Gopal Sri Ram JCA stated:
[10] To summarize, a judge hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction should undertake an inquiry along the following lines:
(1) he must ask himself whether the totality of the facts presented before him discloses a bona fide serious issue to be tried. He must, when considering this question, bear in mind that
