Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2693
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SOLIDWIN PROPERTY SDN BHD & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: P-02(NCvC)(A)-899-05/2019 P-02(IM)(NCvC)-876-07/2020 & P-02(IM)(NCvC)-878-07/2020]
A claim raising substantial issues of fact and law must proceed to trial rather than be struck out, especially when previous judgments do not resolve the ownership issues conclusively.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Sections 327 and 329 - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18, Rule 19(1)(a) - Appeal against removal of private caveat and striking out of civil suit - The Court found that the issues raised by the Appellant concerning ownership and validity of sales warranted a full trial, rejecting the lower court's decision that they were unsustainable. (Paras 36, 62)
(B) Estoppel and Res Judicata - The Appellant's claims were not barred as the previous judgments did not conclusively resolve the ownership issues, allowing the Appellant to pursue its claims. (Paras 59, 60)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant entered a private caveat on three parcels of land purchased by the Respondent, who sought its removal. The Appellant's claims against multiple defendants involved challenges to the ownership and validity of land sales, raising issues of law and fact. (Paras 3-9, 34)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the lower court erred in striking out the Appellant's claims, which raised triable issues warranting a full trial rather than summary dismissal. (Paras 62)
Issues: The main issues included whether the sale of the lands was void due to lack of authority, whether the Respondent was a bona fide purchaser, and whether the Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata. (Paras 39, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Appellant's claims raised substantial issues of mixed law and fact that required a trial, and the invocation of res judicata was inappropriate given the specific circumstances of the case. (Paras 41, 62)
Result: Appeals allowed with costs, and the decisions of the High Court set aside. (Paras 8, 9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals arise from high court decisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of land purchase and caveat. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. details of related appeals and land ownership disputes. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28) |
| 4. court's analysis of claims and legal arguments. (Para 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59) |
| 5. final decision to allow appeals and set aside lower court orders. (Para 62) |
Introduction
[1] This appeal arises from a decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner of the High Court in Penang ['LJC'] in an Originating Summons ['OS'] filed by the Respondent for the removal of the Appellant's private caveat entered on the lands which are the subject of dispute. The Appellant's dissatisfaction in Appeal No 899 is against the LJC's decision to allow the Respondent's OS and in ordering the private caveat to be removed.
[2] In the related appeals, Appeal Nos 876 and 878, the appeals were against the decision of the Learned High Court Judge ['LJ'] to allow the Respondents' ['2nd and 4th Defendants' and 1st and 3rd Defendants'] application to strike out the Appellant/Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim ['SOC'] pursuant to O 18, r 19(1)(a), Rules of Court 2012 [' ROC '].
Background Facts
Appeal No 899
[3] The Appellant, 3Q Resources was a Defendant in a High Court Suit No PA-24NCvC-17-01/2019 taken by the Respondent/Plaintiff, Solidwin Property Sdn Bhd ['Solidwin'], in which Solidwin applied for the removal of a private caveat entered on 19 November 2018 by the 3Q Resources against the following 3 parcels of land:
(a) Grant No 5657, Lot No 44, Seksyen 1, Bandar Butterworth, Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang;
(b) Grant No 5658, Lot No 45, Seksyen 1, Bandar Butterworth, Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang; and
(c) Grant No 5659, Lot No 48, Seksyen 1, Bandar Butterworth, Daerah Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang.
[4] Solidwin prayed for the following reliefs from the High Court:
(a) an order for the private caveat registered on 19 November 2018 vide presentation No 0799B2018012048 entered by the defendant on the 3 parcels of land be immediately removed and cancelled by the Registrar of Titles for the State of Penang pursuant to s 327 of the National Land Code 1965;
(b) an order for the Registrar of Titles for the State of Penang and/or other relevant authorities to give effect to the order of this Court under prayer (a);
(c) an order for the defendant to pay damages and/or compensation to the plaintiff pursuant to s 329 of the National Land Code 1965 arising out of the entry of the caveat on the 3 parcels of land;
(d) an order for the damages and/or compensation granted by this Court under prayer (3) to be assessed by this honourable Court;
(e) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the damages and/or compensation granted by this Court under prayer (3) calculated from the date of entry of the caveat to the date of full realization;
(f) an injunction to prevent and/or prohibit the defendant from entering any additional and/or further private caveat and/or from encumbering the land in any manner whatsoever;
(g) cost; and
(h) such further and other reliefs as this honourable Court deems fit and proper.
[5] In that case, what happened was that Solidwin bought the 3 parcels of land from Magnum Consortium Sdn Bhd ['D1'] and executed a sale and purchase agreement dated 25 August 2016 for the purchase price of RM92,815,233.00. Prior to the presentation for registration of the memorandum of transfer in the manner of Form 14A of the National Land Code 1965, Solidwin had, on 13 December 2016, conducted a land search on the 3 parcels of land and was satisfied that the 3 parcels were free from encumbrances. Pursuant to the sale transaction, ownership of the 3 parcels of land respectively as later registered on 24 January 2017 under Solidwin's name.
[6] In order to finance the purchase of the said lands, Solid
