Strict compliance with statutory timelines and conditions for appeal is essential for the court's jurisdiction.

Introduction

[1] This was an appeal pursuant to s 145 of the Local Government Act 1976 against the decision of the respondent dated 16 July 2014, to revise the assessment rates imposed on the appellant.

[2] By this originating motion dated 13 August 2014 ("encl 1"), the appellant had sought, amongst others, the following reliefs:

2.1. A declaration that the respondent in fixing the annual value of the premises identified as Bangunan Loke Yew, No 2-8 Even, Jalan Mahkamah Persekutuan, 50050 Kuala Lumpur ("the premises") at RM1,470,000.00 ("the decision") has valued the premises beyond the rateable value;

2.2. That the decision be reversed or set aside;

2.3. That the annual value of the premises be reduced from RM1,470,000.00 to RM876,000.00;

2.4. Consequently that the assessment sum payable for the premises be reduced from RM131,400.00 to RM87,000.00 or such sum as this court deems fit;

2.5. Any reliefs as this court deems fit; and

2.6. Costs.

[3] Enclosure 1 was fixed for hearing before me on 16 March 2015. On 6 January 2015, the learned counsel for the respondent had issued a notice to the learned counsel for the appellant to indicate to the said learned counsel of the appellant that the respondent would be raising two preliminary objections, the substance of which were as averred in the affidavit of the respondent affirmed on 26 September 2014 and filed herein (see para 4 of encl). The two objections were as follows:

3.1. The appeal has been filed outside the mandatory time period prescribed under s 145 of the Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171) (" LGA ");

3.2. That the appellant has not paid the assessed sum within the mandatory period prescribed under s 145 of the LGA .

[4] On 16 March 2015, I proceeded to hear the preliminary objections raised by the respondent and upon perusing the cause papers and the written submissions filed by the respondent as well as the appellant and upon hearing the oral submissions by both the learned counsels, I accepted the preliminary objections raised by the respondent and struck out the appeal with costs. After hearing a short submission on costs, I awarded costs of RM5,000.00 to the respondent.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts leading to the appeal had been well illustrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. I could not do anything better than to adopt the same herein with some modifications wherever necessary as follows:

5.1. The appellant is the registered owner of the premises.

5.2. The respondent is a body corporate established under the Federal Capital Act 1960 (Act 190) and vested with all the powers under the Act, including to impose assessment rates for buildings within the territories of Kuala Lumpur and to exercise all powers pursuant to the LGA .

5.3. On 19 November 2013, the appellant had received a "Notice of Revision of the Valuation List" dated 18 November 2013 from the respondent proposing to revise the annual value of the premises to RM1,703,760.00 effective from 1 January 2014 (see "exh CHE 1" of encl 2).

5.4. On 2 July 2014, the appellant received a "Notis Keputusan Bantahan Cukai Pintu Harta 2-8 Even Bangunan Loke Yew, Jalan Mahkamah Persekutuan 50050 Kuala Lumpur" dated 25 June 2014 from the respondent ("notice"), notifying the appellant that it had valued the said premises at RM1,485,360 (see "exh CHE6" of encl 2).

5.5. Vide its letter dated 10 July 2014, the appellant had requested the respondent to reconsider the annual value which the respondent had imposed on the said premises (see "exh CHE 7" of encl 2).

5.6. The respondent had reduced the annual value of the said premises from the sum of RM1,703,760.00 imposed earlier to RM1,470,000.00 (see "exh CHE7" of encl 2).

5.7. On 13 Aug