Back
2021 MarsdenLR 2965
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS DAERAH HULU SELANGOR – Appellant
Versus
UNITED PLANTATIONS BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-27-09/2019(B)]
Local authorities must prepare a new Valuation List every five years as mandated by the Local Government Act; failure to do so renders imposition of rates invalid.
Headnote:(A) Local Government Act 1976 – Section 145(5) – The power of local authority to impose rates on holdings under Part XV – The High Court found the amendment of the Valuation List by the local authority to be void due to the lack of compliance with procedural requirements. (Paras 1, 18, 73)
(B) Valuation List and Duties of Local Authorities – Local authorities are required to prepare a new Valuation List every five years; failure to comply is a serious dereliction of duties. (Paras 47, 50)
Facts of the case: The respondent objected to the imposition of rates on its holdings which were included in the local authority's jurisdiction only recently; the local authority failed to inform the respondent of the existence of the Valuation List prior to the amendment. (Paras 8-10, 15)
Findings of Court: The High Court found that the Notice of Amendment was ultra vires and invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions concerning the Valuation List, leading to no lawful basis for imposing rates. (Paras 18, 76)
Issues: Whether the local authority had the power to include the respondent’s holdings in the Valuation List and impose rates without a valid Valuation List being prepared and completed. (Paras 4, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a properly prepared Valuation List, the imposition of rates was invalid; the local authority's interpretations of its powers under the Act were incorrect. (Paras 64, 71)
Result: Appeal dismissed. (Paras 79)
[1] Three questions of law were posed in appeal directly from the High Court to the Federal Court by virtue of s 145(5) of the Local Government Act 1976 [Act 171]. All three questions concern the power of the appellant, as the local authority for the local authority area of Hulu Selangor, to impose rates on holdings located within its area of local authority under Part XV of Act 171.
[2] The appellant had imposed rates on the respondent's holding which hitherto had been excluded from the jurisdiction of the appellant. The respondent objected and appealed. On 4 July 2019, the High Court allowed the respondent's appeal.
[3] Section 145 (5) of Act 171 allows any party to appeal directly to the Federal Court on questions of law. The full terms of s 145 are as follows:
145. (1)Any person who having made an objection in the manner prescribed by s 142 or s 144 is dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority thereon may appeal to the High Court by way of originating motion:
Provided that with the filing of the originating motion there shall be paid into the local authority the amount of the rate appealed against.
(2) The originating motion shall be filed by the person dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority within fourteen days of the receipt thereof.
(3) The local authority shall be the respondent in any appeal under this section.
(4) Every such appeal shall be heard before the High Court whose decision on questions of fact shall be final and conclusive.
(5) From the decision of the High Court either party may appeal on questions of law to the Federal Court whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
[4] The three questions of law posed are:
i. Sama ada pegangan responden dikategorikan sebagai suatu pegangan berkadar atau suatu pegangan yang dikecualikan daripada kadar.
ii. Sama ada pegangan yang dimasukkan ke dalam kawasan kerajaan tempatan melalui persempadanan semula dikategorikan sebagai pegangan yang dikecualikan dari kadar sebelum ia disenaraikan di dalam senarai nilaian atau pindaan kepada senarai nilaian.
iii. Sama ada responden berhak untuk bergantung kepada Senarai Nilaian bagi tahun 1996 untuk tahun taksiran 2018 atau mana- mana taksiran selepas itu.
[5] After hearing parties by way of a virtual platform, necessary in view of the current pandemic which has spared no corner of the world including this Nation, and at that material time upon the cooperation and consent of the parties (the law has since been amended to facilitate such means - see ss 3, 15A and 16(aa) of the Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 2020 [Act A1621]), we unanimously dismissed the appeal and answered all three questions in the following terms.
Brief Facts
[6] First, some background facts for context so that the appeal may be better understood. These facts are summarised from the succinct grounds of the learned High Court Judge and the cause papers.
[7] The respondent, United Plantations Berhad [UPB] is the registered owner of 2, 889 hectares of holdings located at Lot 1899, Ladang Lima Belas, Mukim Ulu Bernam, District of Ulu Selangor, upon which it carries on an oil palm plantation business [UPB holdings].
[8] By letter dated 3 July 2018, the appellant, Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor [MDHS] informed UPB that it was going to impose an annual value and annual rates on the UPB holdings. It is however, not in dispute that prior to this letter, UPB was unaware that its holdings fell within the local authority area of MDHS.
[9] According to MDHS, it had decided to revise its Valuation List for 1996 [Valuation List]. A Notice of a New Valuation List 1996 was published in the Government of Selangor Gazette by way of Notification dated 21 December 1995 informing that the Valuation List will be revised on 30 December 1995. The UPB holdings were neither rated nor included in the Valuation List at this point in time.
[10] By Government of Selangor Gazette Notification dated 26 June 2008, the boundaries of the Hulu Selangor Dis
