Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2527
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN, J
KHEW KEAT SEEN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
KHEW KOK SENG & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCVC-462-08-2017]
A consent judgment is binding and cannot be varied without grounds that vitiate parties' consent, which were not pleaded in this case.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14A and Order 33 - Consent judgment - Validity and binding nature of consent judgment - Court held that the consent judgment from June 2015 is valid and binding, and the plaintiffs' reliefs would vary it, thus the court lacks jurisdiction to grant them. (Paras 3, 17, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court's power to grant reliefs - Court determined that any reliefs sought by the plaintiffs would be a nullity as the consent judgment remains valid and binding. (Paras 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs and the first defendant entered into a consent judgment regarding land ownership, but failed to sell the land within the stipulated period and sought to vary the terms of the consent judgment. (Paras 8-12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the consent judgment is binding and cannot be varied without proper grounds for vitiating consent, which the plaintiffs did not plead. (Paras 17, 19, 26)
Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiffs could seek reliefs that would vary the existing consent judgment. (Paras 2, 26)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a consent order is binding and may only be set aside on grounds that vitiate the parties' consent; the plaintiffs did not plead any such grounds. (Paras 17, 19)
Result: Plaintiffs' writ action struck out.
(Enclosure 144)
Introduction
[1] This application in encl 144 was made by the defendants under O 14A and/or O 33 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") for this Court to determine questions of law and/or construction of the consent judgment entered by the Shah Alam High Court in June 2015 in Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-171-03/2015 ("the 2015 suit") in respect of the land (defined below).
[2] Essentially, the questions of law posed by the defendants are whether the consent judgment is valid and binding, and if yes, would the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in this instant suit have the effect of varying the consent judgment, and if so, can this Court grant the said reliefs.
[3] For the reasons detailed in this judgment, this Court determined that the consent judgment is valid and binding, and the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs would have the effect of varying the consent judgment. Hence, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs in this action. Accordingly, I struck out this action pursuant to the Court 's powers under O 14A r 1(2) of the ROC.
[4] This Court 's answers to the questions of law in encl 144 and the full reasons for the answers are set out herein.
Application
[5] The defendants applied for the following questions to be determined by this Court :
(a) sama ada relif-relif yang dituntut oleh Plaintif-plaintif dalam Writ Saman Terpinda Semula bertarikh 10 Februari 2023 ("Writ Saman") dan Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Semula bertarikh 10 Februari 2023 ("Pernyataan Tuntutan") berkenaan dengan Tanah yang dipegang di bawah Hakmilik GM 6009, Lot 809, Mukim Ulu Yam, Daerah Ulu Selangor ("Tanah Tersebut") telahpun diperuntukkan dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan bertarikh 25 Jun 2015 yang dimasuki antara Plaintif-plaintif dan Defendan Pertama ("Penghakiman Persetujuan");
(b) sekiranya perenggan (a) dijawab secara positif, sama ada relif-relif yang dituntut dalam Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan adalah bercanggah dengan terma-terma dalam Penghakiman Persetujuan;
(c) sekiranya perenggan (b) dijawab secara positif, sama ada relif-relif yang dituntut dalam Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan boleh diberikan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini memandangkan Penghakiman Persetujuan masih sah dan berkuatkuasa; dan
(d) sekiranya perenggan (c) adalah dijawab secara positif, sama ada relif- relif dalam Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan sekiranya dibenarkan Mahkamah yang Mulia ini boleh dikuatkuasakan memandangkan Penghakiman Persetujuan masih sah dan berkuat kuasa.
Material Facts
[6] The material facts are not disputed by the parties.
[7] The 1st plaintiff ("P1"), Khew Kiat Wee ("the deceased"), and the 1st defendant ("D1") are the registered owners of a piece of land known as GM6009, Lot 809, Tempat Sungei Liam, Mukim Ulu Yam, Daerah Ulu Selangor, Negeri Selangor ("the land").
[8] The plaintiffs and D1 had entered into a consent judgment dated 25 June 2015 in the 2015 suit to resolve their disputes regarding the land. The relevant terms of the consent judgment are:
(b) KEDUA, DIPERINTAHKAN BAHAWA tanah yang dipegang di bawah Hak Milik GM 6009, Lot 809, Mukim Ulu Yam, Daerah Ulu Selangor, Negeri Selangor (selepas ini disebut sebagai "Tanah Ulu Yam") hendaklah dijualkan kepada pihak ketiga dengan harga tidak kurang daripada RM3,000,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia Tiga Juta Sahaja) Dan Juga Diperintahkan Plaintif-plaintif atau Defendan dibenarkan mencari seorang pembeli dalam tempoh enam (6) bulan dan selepas enam (6) bulan, harga jualan yang baru hendaklah dipersetujui oleh kesemua Plaintif-plaintif dan Defendan DAN JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN pemilikpemilik berdaftar iaitu Khew Keat Seen, Khew Kiat Wee dan Khew Kok Seng dikehendaki menandatangani Perjanjian Jual Beli, Borang Pindahmilik (Borang 14A), Borang Melepaskan Gadaian (Borang 16N) (jika ada) dan dokumen-dokumen yang berkenaan dengan pembeli DAN JUGA DIPERINTAHKAN BAHAWA Defendan menyerahkan suratan hakmilik asal Tanah Ulu Yam itu kepada Tetuan T
