The court of Appeal cannot extend a private caveat beyond six years as mandated and cannot order conditions not requested, as it would render the appeal ineffective.

[1] On 16 June 2008 this court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the decision of the court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No B-02-540-2007 on the following questions:

(a) whether as a matter of law the court of Appeal can pursuant to s 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 , order or direct the land registrar or land administrator to enter a registrar's caveat under s 417 of the National Land Code 1965 in the following circumstances:

(i) in the absence of a final judgment or order of the court; and/or

(ii) where the High court in the subject matter of the appeal had ordered that the respondent's application to reinstate and extend the respondent's private caveat be dismissed with costs; and/or

(iii) where such an order had not been expressly or specifically sought in the written application before the court of Appeal;

(b) whether as a matter of law the court of Appeal can make orders under s 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which in effect renders the appeal nugatory or academic and/or is made pending the disposal of another suit which is not the subject matter of the appeal; and

(c) whether as a matter of law and justice the court of Appeal can make such orders as they did on the 9 January 2008 which were not prayed for in the application or in the appeal without affording the respondent before the court of Appeal the opportunity to show by way of evidence that the orders which included an injunction without an undertaking as to damages ought not to have been granted.

[2] This is an appeal against an interim order. I am in serious doubt as to whether leave should have been granted in the first place as the main suit is still pending in the Kuala Lumpur High court. Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) reads:

(1) In any proceeding pending before the court of Appeal any direction incidental thereto not involving the decision of the proceeding, any interim order to prevent prejudice to the claims of parties pending the hearing of the proceeding, any order for security for costs, and for the dismissal of a proceeding for default in furnishing security so ordered may at any time be made by a Judge of the court of Appeal.

(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a proceeding in the court of Appeal.

(3) Every order made under subsection (1) may, upon application by the aggrieved party made within ten days after the order is served, be affirmed, varied or discharged by the court

The Background

[3] At all material times, a locally incorporated company named Harta Sekata Sdn Bhd ("HSSB") was the registered proprietor of a piece of land held under HS(D) 114559, PT NO 243, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor ("the said land") which is the subject-matter of the dispute.

[4] On 30 March 1998, one Soo Sin Lian @ Su Ken Sin Sat ("SL Soo"), a locally incorporated company named Jupiter Securities Sdn Bhd and HSSB entered into a deed of settlement (hereafter referred to as "the said deed of settlement"). The said deed of settlement relates to an option agreement dated 15 July 1997 between SL Soo and one Abdul Razak Jalil in respect of 9,2600,000 shares of Mycom Berhad. On the same date, ie, 15 July 1997 SL Soo, Abdul Razak Jalil and a locally incorporated company named Amsteel Securities (M) Sdn Bhd entered into another agreement relating to a block of the Mycom shares. Consequently an arrangement was ente