Back
HIGH COURT, SIBU
LAW KING PO & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SACOFA SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
The grounds of appeal may include the following points:
The appellant may argue that the lower court erred in concluding that the co-owners' use of the land did not amount to trespass, asserting that the actions of the respondents unlawfully interfered with the appellant’s possession and rights over the property (!) .
The appellant could contend that the court failed to recognize an ouster or dispossession, which would have justified the trespass claim, and that the activities conducted by the respondents went beyond lawful use and occupation (!) .
The appeal might challenge the interpretation that lawful activities by co-owners cannot constitute trespass, claiming that specific actions undertaken by the respondents exceeded permissible use and amounted to wrongful interference (!) .
The appellant may also argue that the court incorrectly dismissed the claim without adequately considering the evidence of wrongful acts or unauthorized use by the respondents (!) .
JUDGMENT
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:
[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiffs' claim in trespass and nuisance and a declaration that the telecommunication tower built on a parcel of land adjacent to the plaintiffs' land be demolished.
Brief Fact
[2] The plaintiffs and the 2nd to 4th defendants are co-proprietors of undivided share in land described as Lot 134. Further the 2nd to 4th defendants are co-proprietors of an adjacent land described as Lot 73. With the consent of the 2nd to 4th defendants, the 1st defendant had rented a part of the land in Lot 73 and built a telecommunication tower with consent and approval of the relevant authorities. The plaintiffs complain that (i) during the construction of the tower on Lot 73, the 1st defendant, their workers and agents together with their machineries entered, cleared and trespassed a portion of Lot 134 and built a reinforced concrete culvert and a permanent tar-sealed access road across Lot 134 without any reference to or consent from the plaintiffs. (ii) the tower was built on land to be used for agricultural purposes only and no approval for variation of title in respect of condition has been granted by the Director of Land
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
