A statutory notice under the Electricity Supply Act is valid even if it does not specify an objection date, provided no objections are raised by the parties entitled to object.

S Nantha Balan JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (plaintiff) against the decision of the learned Judge of the High Court in Johor Bahru dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent (defendant) after a full trial. The decision appealed against is dated 28 May 2019. We heard the appeal on 12 February 2020 and dismissed it with costs. These are our reasons for dismissing the appeal.

[2] The respondent is a public listed company and is licensed under s 9 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (Act 447) ("the Act") to supply electricity. Under the Act, the respondent has a right to enter private land to erect pylons for their electricity transmission lines. The exercise of the statutory right is however, subject to the respondent's strict compliance with the requirements of the Act.

[3] In 2005, the respondent entered upon part of the land held under Geran 50333 Lot 891 Mukim Sungai Tiram, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor ("the land") and erected pylon cables over the land. The pylon cables were part of a transmission line over the land. The total area of the land is about 507.4983 acres. The area occupied by the pylon cables is 8.9656 acres.

[4] The appellant purchased the land at a public auction on 5 December 2002. They became the registered owner of the land on 20 December 2005.

[5] On 15 December 2017 the appellant filed the Writ in the High Court in Johor Bahru. This would be about 12 years after the appellant became the registered owner of the land. The appelant's case is that in 2005 the respondent entered the land and erected pylon cables over an area measuring 8.9656 acres, and as such the respondent trespassed on the land. The appellant claims that there is a continuing trespass. In para 4 of the statement of claim, the appellant stated that, "Defendan telah sejak tahun 2005, mencerobohi sebahagian tanah tersebut dengan membina di atas sebahagian tanah tersebut Pylon Cables dan kini masih mencerobohi tanah tersebut."

[6] The following reliefs were sought in the Writ:

a. Satu perintah injuksi mandatory bahawa Defendan hendaklah serta merta merobohkan semua Pylon Cables yang didirikan dan atau dibina diatas sebahagian tanah yang dipegang di bawah hakmilik Geran 50333 Lot 891, Mukim Sungai Tiram, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "tanah tersebut"), yang luas pencerobohan oleh Defendan tersebut ke atas tanah tersebut ialah lebih kurang 8.9656 ekar;

b. Satu perintah injuksi menghalang defendan, ajen-ajen dan atau perkerja- perkerja [sic] Defendan dan atau sesiapa pun yang diarahkan atau diberikuasa oleh Defendan daripada memasuki atau mencerobohi ke dalam mana-mana bahagian tanah tersebut;

c. Gantirugi khas sejumlah RM10,580,000.00 untuk pencerobohan tanah tersebut;

d. Gantirugi am untuk pencerobohan tanah tersebut;

e. Gantirugi teladan dan gantirugi exemplari;

f. Faedah ke atas jumlah yang dihakimi pada kadar 5% setahun daripada 1 January 2005 (atau mana-mana tarikh yang difikirkan sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini) sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh;

g. Kos;

h. Relief [sic] selanjutnya atau relief [sic] lain yang difikirkan sesuai dan adil oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini.

[7] The respondent filed their defence on 29 January 2018 and asserted (per para 4) that they lawfully entered upon the land pursuant to s 11(2) for the purpose of building the Transmission Line 132kV from Pencawang Masuk Utama ("PMU") Tanjung Langsat to PMU Tanjung Belungkur.

[8] The respondent further contended that an assessment inquiry (under s 16) was held on 20 April 2004 whereupon the Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Johor Bahru ("the PTD") determined that a sum of RM165,817.81 ("the compensation sum") was payable as compensation by reason of the respondent's entry upon the land. To- date the compensation sum has not been paid to any party. The PTD's order dated 20 April 2004 shall be referred to as "the Compensation Order".

[9] The main issue for determination at the trial before the High Court was whe