Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2714
SESSIONS COURT SEPANG
LAN ING HOCK @ LAU ING HOCK – Appellant
Versus
KAN KWOK PING @ KAN KOK PING; TOH CHING KING (PROPOSED INTERVENER) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BK-B52NCVC-4-02/2022]
The Sessions Court lacks jurisdiction over immovable property disputes unless all parties consent, as mandated by the Subordinate Courts Act 1948.
Headnote:(A) Subordinate Courts Act 1948 - Section 69 - Jurisdiction of Sessions Court over immovable property - The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the ownership of two parcels of land due to the absence of consent from all parties as required by s 71 of the Act. (Paras 34, 45, 46)
(B) Intervention - Criteria for intervention - The applicant sought to intervene claiming ownership rights over lands, but the court found that it could not consider the merits due to lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 27, 45)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land purchased by his deceased father, while the applicant asserted rights through a power of attorney and other documents. The court found no jurisdiction to determine ownership. (Paras 6, 27)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case involving immovable property and therefore dismissed the application to intervene. (Paras 45, 48)
Issues: The main issues were whether the court had jurisdiction over the land ownership dispute and whether the applicant had a legal interest in the matter. (Paras 18, 45)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that jurisdiction was lacking based on s 69 of the SCA 1948, which restricts Sessions Court from dealing with immovable property without consent from all parties. (Paras 34, 45)
Result: The application to intervene was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. (Para 48)
JUDGMENT
A) Introduction
[1] This case involves a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership over two parcels of land (the said lands) which were allegedly sold by the defendant before the Merdeka Day. At first blush, the overall facts of this case were interesting. The meandering facts of this case bid for the fullest comprehension of this court.
[2] This judgment is prepared pursuant to an appeal filed by the proposed intervener (the applicant) to the High court following the applicant's dissatisfaction over my decision in dismissing the applicant's application at encl 32.
[3] Enclosure 32 is an application filed by the applicant seeking leave from this court to intervene in the main action. There were three arguments raised by the applicant in his submission. Out of three, only one crucial argument was raised by the applicant that exposed the Achilles heel of encl 32 which moved this court to dismiss encl 32, ie the lack of jurisdiction of this court.
[4] The applicant was right in saying that this court was prevented from dealing with this case by s 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 ( SCA 1948). Therefore, I dismissed the applicant's application at encl 32 for want of jurisdiction.
B) Brief Facts
[5] I do not intend to delve into the merits of this case as I am restrained from doing so. However, it would be important for me to briefly narrate the sequence of events that brought encl 32 before this court.
[6] The plaintiff in this case claimed that he was the beneficiary to a deceased Lau Heng Guan who owned the said lands located in the district of Sepang namely Lot 478 and Lot 369 which were purchased by Lau Heng Guan from the defendant through an oral agreement. Lau Heng Guan was the plaintiff's father.
[7] The plaintiff asserted that Lau Heng Guan and himself had been paying the quit rent for the said lands since 1950. The plaintiff supported his claim by further stating that when Lot 369 was acquired by Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), the compensation was paid to him directly in the sum of RM17,783.00. The said compensation payment proves that Lau Heng Guan was the rightful owner of Lot 369.
[8] According to the plaintiff, the transfer of title of the said lands was unable to be perfected because the defendant could not be located. The plaintiff sought from this court:
i) A declaration that the plaintiff's father was the legal owner of the said lands;
ii) A specific performance order for the perfection of the transfer of the said lands to the plaintiff's deceased father;
iii) The plaintiff being the administrator is given the authority to execute any transfer regarding the said lands to the deceased's father;
iv) An order to the Land Administrator to issue new land grants over the said lands; and
v) The plaintiff is permitted to apply new grant.
[9] On 10 May 2022, the plaintiff filed another application in this court (Encl 19) applying for leave from this court to enter judgment in default against the defendant. Enclosure 19 was heard before a previous judge who handled this case on 11 May 2022. The learned judge gave an order in terms for encl 19 favouring the plaintiff. Thus, judgment in default was recorded against the defendant.
[10] I took over this case only in late 2022 and this case was called for the first time before me on 7 December 2022. The plaintiff filed another application at encl 23 requesting leave from this court to allow an amendment to the plaintiff's name from Kan Kwok Ping to Kim Kwok Ping. I allowed an order in terms for encl 23 on 31 March 2022.
[11] Subsequently, the applicant filed encl 32 to intervene on 18 April 2023 requesting this court to grant leave:
i) To intervene as one of the parties in this case;
ii) To permit the applicant to file his defence and other relevant interlocutory applications; and
iii) Costs and other reliefs.
[12] The applicant gave the following reasons in support of encl 32:
i) The applicant has beneficial and legal rights over the said lands;
ii) The court's decisio
