Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ:

On 31 December 1996, the respondent filed an originating motion under s. 145 of the Local Government Act 1976 ("the Act") praying for the following order that:

(i) the decision of Datuk Bandar, Kuala Lumpur made on the 27th November 1996 whereby the total Annual Value of the land held under PT 3561 and PT3557, HS (D) 71258 and 71262 respectively, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Wilayah Persekutuan was revised to a total sum of RM5,760,000.00 be set aside and that the Annual Value be substituted by the estimated Gross Annual Rent of the land amounting to RM1,300,000.00 only.

(ii) the costs of this appeal be taxed by the proper officer of this Court and be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant.

That was in fact an appeal against the decision of the appellant under s. 145(1) of the Act. As at the time of the filing of the originating motion, the respondent had not paid the rate appealed against. The amount was only paid on 6 February 1997 ie, about five weeks later.

On 3 May 1997, the appellant filed an affidavit in reply raising, inter alia, a preliminary objection that the appeal was not properly brought because the respondent did not pay to the appellant the amount of the rate appealed against "with the filing of the originating motion", as required by the proviso to s. 145(1) of the Act.

On 9 June 1997, the respondent filed the originating motion praying that the time for the payment of the amount of the rate appealed against be extended to 6 February 1997, the day it was paid. The High Court allowed the respondent's application.

On 25 October 2004, this court granted the appellant an extension of time to appeal and leave to appeal to this court on the following questions of law:

(a) whether the time to pay the rates appealed against, which by the proviso to Section 145(1) of the Local Government Act, 1976 is stated to be at the time of filing the Motion could, despite its mandatory nature, be extended by the Court;

(b) whether the general power of the Court to extend time under the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 could apply to a particular statute which imposes express time stipulations and which statute does not itself provide for extension of time.

I shall first state the law. In so doing, it is important to look at the scheme of the legislation more widely and not just the provisions of s. 145(1) that are in issue. The relevant part of the Act is Part XV with the heading "Rating and Valuation". Section 127 empowers the local authority to impose the annual rate or rates within a local authority. Section 130 provides the basis of assessment of the rate or rates which may be assessed "upon the annual value of holdings or upon the improved value of holdings " The rate or rates so imposed "shall endure for any period not exceeding twelve months " - s. 133.

Section 137 talks about the preparation of a Valuation List. The Valuation List remains in force until it is superseded by a new Valuation List which shall be prepared and completed once every five years or within such extended period as the State Authority may determine.

Section 141 requires that the notice of the new Valuation List be published. Any person aggrieved by the valuation may make objections to the local authority within fourteen days before the time fixed for the revision of the Valuation List - s. 142.

Section 143, inter alia, requires the local authority to confirm the Valuation List on or before 31 December of the year preceding the year in which any Valuation List is to come into force, with or without amendment or revision. The local authority is not required to hear and determine all objections to the Valuation List before confirming it. But the local authority is required to hear objections not heard and determined before the Valuation List is confirmed as soon as possible. Until an objection has been heard and determined, the increase in the valuation or new valuation objected to shall not be deemed to be in force and the