Back
2019 MarsdenLR 831
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK SIBU
ZEMINE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TAI CHOI YU & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Suit No: SBW-22NCVC-7/3-2019 & SBW-22NCVC-8/3-2019]
The burden of proof rests on the caveator to justify the continuation of a caveat over property interests.
Headnote:In this case concerning a caveat lodged over a piece of land, it was found that there was no valid resolution entitling the caveator to three units of shophouses. The court determined that the burden of proof lies with the caveator to demonstrate the justification for the caveat. The consent judgment supersedes any previous claims regarding agreements, as reiterated in Eng Mee Yong & Ors v. Letchumanan. As such, the caveat was ruled unwarranted and ordered for removal. The plaintiff is entitled to costs amounting to RM15,000.00.
Act Referred
National Land Code: S.327
Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak): S.15(1)
Limitation Ordinance (Sarawak)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involves disputes over land development arrangements. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
[10] On 9 July 2014, the parties entered into a consent judgment before Supang Lian J. See Bundle B, p 39. At that time, the defendant appeared as counsel for Hong Kong Realty Sdn Bhd.
[11] The parties agreed that they would carry out and perform the Development Agreement dated 9 May 1998, with the time to perform to be extended.
[12] It was further agreed that Hong Kong Realty Sdn Bhd would resubmit new subdivision plans in relation to residential houses and 52 units of three- storey shophouses. There is no evidence that the subdivision has taken place or that the properties have been developed.
Basis For The Defendant's Caveat And Counterclaim
[13] Returning to the present proceedings, the defendant averred that the parties herein had entered into two agreements.
[14] In respect of the 1st agreement, the defendant referred to a warrant to act dated 13 November 2007. It was brought up by way of an amendment. See para 5 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim, p 64 of the bundle of pleadings marked as BP. The warrant to act bears the plaintiff's seal and was purportedly executed by four persons, including the chairman, secretary and the treasurer. See Bundle C, pp 1-2. None of the purported signatories testified and it was not marked as an exhibit.
[15] The defendant avers that by reason of the first agreement vide the warrant to act, the plaintiff "convened a Board of Directors meeting on the 26 May 2008 and passed a company resolution to this effect which said resolution is shown in exh X ...". See BP, p 64, para 6.
