The court ruled that the defendant was solely responsible for renewing the lease, as the plaintiff fulfilled its contractual obligations under the Development Agreement.

JUDGMENT

Christopher Chin Soo Yin JC:

Decision

[1] On 19 January 2021, I ruled in favour of the plaintiff at the Kuching High Court II. These are the grounds of my decision.

Background

[2] The background to this case is amply described in the early part of the plaintiff's submission in encl 110 and which facts are not in dispute.

[3] The plaintiff is a property developer related to an established developer known as Hock Kui Development Sdn Bhd And had been actively developing properties since the 1990s.

[4] The defendant is the registered proprietor of one parcel of land situated at 7th Mile, Penrissen Road, Kuching (within the defendant's area of administration) and containing an area of 9,996 square metres, more or less and described as Lot 96 Block 233 Kuching North Land District ("the Project Land").

[5] By a Development Agreement dated 31 January 2001("the Development Agreement 2001"), the defendant agreed to appoint the plaintiff to undertake a mixed-property development on the Project Land.

[6] Under cl 2(b)(i) of the Development Agreement 2001, the plaintiff agreed to build and complete for the defendant the following within two years from the date of the plaintiff obtaining approval of all the plans and/or vacant possession of the Project Land, whichever is the later:

(1) One unit of warehouse building (subsequently known as Survey Lot 3192);

(2) Three adjoining units of three-storey shop house buildings (subsequently known as Survey Lots 3178, 3179 and 3180)

(3) Area or space for food stall and/or hawker centre without infrastructure (vacant land only) (subsequently known as Survey Lot 3191).

(collectively called "the defendant's Entitlements").

[7] Under cl 2(d) of the Development Agreement 2001, "completion" of the defendant's Entitlements means practical completion as certified by the plaintiff's consultant or architect.

[8] Under cl 2(b)(iii) of the Development Agreement 2001, in consideration of the defendant's Entitlements as aforesaid, the defendant agreed that the remainder of the buildings and/or shophouse structures on the Project Land shall belong to the plaintiff.

[9] Under cl 3 of the Development Agreement 2001, the defendant agreed to render every assistance to the plaintiff in dealing with the various authorities concerned and simultaneously with the execution of the agreement, to execute a power of attorney to the plaintiff or its representative or assigns to carry out its obligations as provided in the agreement.

[10] On 31 January 2001, the defendant duly executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 31 January 2001 in favour of the plaintiff which was registered at the Kuching Land Registry Office on 19 November 2001 as instrument No L.26311/2001("the Irrevocable Power of Attorney 2001").

[11] On 7 February 2001, the plaintiff also lodged a caveat against the Project Land which was registered at the Kuching Land Registry Office as instrument No L.2879/2001 ("the Caveat 2001").

[12] On 2 May 2002, the Land and Survey Department, Kuching Division issued its formal approval for the proposed AVTC (application for variation of title condition) and subdivision of the Project Land which involves the alienation of State Land Lot 183 Block 233 Kuching North Land District ("Lot 183").

[13] Lot 183 is a parcel of land adjacent to the Project Land which was subsequently alienated to another Sarawak statutory body called the Land Custody and Development Authority ("LCDA").

[14] According to PW2, the plaintiff undertook the development of the Project Land together with Lot 183 belonging to LCDA in order to achieve the maximum utilisation of both lands as the two lands have the shape of a cleaver and axe. As a result, LCDA became entitled to a multi-storey car-park building (subsequently known as Survey Lot 3193) and the plaintiff became entitled to 16 units of shop houses. Meanwhile, the defendant's Entitlements remained unaffected.

[15] On 1 April 2005, the defendant gave site possession of the Project Land to the plaintiff.

[16] T