The court ruled that an application to enforce a specific performance decree is not subject to limitation when filed within the appropriate period and following a related court order.

[1]This appeal arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 11 December 2016 wherein the appeal by the respondent was allowed with costs.

[2] On 5 April 2017, leave to appeal was granted to the appellants on the following questions of law:

(i) Whether limitation applies to bar an application to have carriage of a decree of specific performance having regard to the decision of the House of Lords in Johnson and Another v. Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883.

(ii) Whether an application to have carriage of a decree of specific performance to completion is an action upon a judgment within s 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 having regard to the decision in Lowsley and Another v. Forbes (t/a LE Design Services) [1998] 3 All ER 897 as applied in United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v. Ernest Cheong Yong Yin, [2002] 2 MLJ 385.

(iii) Whether the decision in Daud v. Ibrahim , 1960 MarsdenLR 360 applies to an application to have carriage of a decree of specific performance to completion having regard to the decision in Johnson and Another v. Agnew [1979] 1 All ER 883.

[3] The appellants were the plaintiffs in the High Court and the respondent was the 1st defendant. There were altogether 29 plaintiffs in the High Court.

Background Facts

[4] The relevant background facts as laid down by the Court of Appeal are these. The appellants sometime in 1973 entered into sale and purchase agreements with Tan Ah Tong in respect of two pieces of land, namely, Lots 512 and 513 in Ulu Kelang. The purchase price was paid in full by the appellants.

[5] The two pieces of land were then charged to Chase Manhattan Bank on 11 February 1974 by Tan Ah Tong.

[6] In May 1986, the appellants took out a legal action in Originating Summons No: F31-90-86 and sought for two reliefs, namely, a declaration that Tan Ah Tong is a trustee of the said lands for the appellants and specific performance of the sale and purchase agreements between the appellants and Tan Ah Tong.

[7] On 25 March 2000, after a full trial of the aforesaid suit, the High Court granted the following order ("2000 Order"):

"that there be specific performance of the contracts for the plaintiffs except 29th plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants."

[8]On 27 July 2000, Tan Ah Tong charged Lot 512 again to RHB Bank Berhad (previously known as Bank Utama).

[9] Dissatisfied with the 2000 Order, Tan Ah Tong appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 25 October 2005, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Leave to appeal against that decision was refused by this Court on 5 July 2006.

[10] Tan Ah Tong died on 7 April 2011 which resulted in his son Tan Pok Shyong being substituted as the legal representative of the estate of Tan Ah Tong.

[11] Meanwhile, Lot 512 was auctioned off by RHB Bank at Gombak Land Office on 13 April 2014.

[12] The appellants caveated Lot 513 to protect their interest.

[13] The respondent, as the legal representative of the estate of Tan Ah Tong, objected to the land office of the entry of the caveat on Lot 513 by the appellants.

[14] On 7 October 2015, the appellants then filed the application (Encl 292) which is the subject matter of the appeal before this Court for an order, inter alia, that the respondent transfers Lot 513 to the appellants. The application was amended by an order of the Court dated 10 April 2016.

[15] On 10 April 2016, the High Court granted orders in term of the application. It was also ordered that the appellants are to hold the estate of Tan Ah Tongs undivided share in Lot 513 on trust for the estate.

Decision Of The High Court

[16] On the issue of whether the High Court was seized with the jurisdiction to grant the orders prayed for in the application, the learned Judicial Commissioner