The appointment of experts in an appeal under the Local Government Act cannot exceed procedural provisions without statutory basis.

Introduction

[1] This is an application documented in encl 9 filed by the appellants for the appointment of two registered valuers by the court pursuant to O 40 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ("the ROC 2012") with a view to assist the court in hearing the appeal by the appellants under s 145 of the Local Government Act 1976 ("the LGA ") against the decision of the respondent.

Key Background Fact

[2] The 1st appellant is the master developer of Nusajaya, which has an area of about 23,000 acres. The other appellants are the 1st appellant's related corporations, and owners of the 61 lots of land ("the said lands") forming the subject matter of the appeal. The respondent is the local authority having jurisdiction over the relevant area.

[3] The underlying bone of contention in this instant case is that the appellants are dissatisfied with the rates imposed under s 127 of the LGA by the respondent on the said lands. The appellants then filed their objections to the same under s 142(1) of the , specifically on the basis of Item (a) which concerns the ground that the holdings are valued beyond their rateable value. Section 142 (2) further states the following:

"(2) All objections shall be enquired into and the persons making them shall at such enquiry be allowed an opportunity of being heard either in person or by an authorised agent."

[4] Dissatisfied with not only the outcome but also the decision-making process of the enquiry, the appellants exercised their rights to appeal against the decision of the respondent to this High court under s 145 of the LGA .

[5] The instant application for the appointment of court-appointed experts is thus made with the objective of preparing for the hearing of the appeal. This application is resisted by the respondent.

Evaluation & Findings By This court

[6] The appellants maintained that given the size of the said lands, involving 61 lots and the total value fixed by the respondent at more than RM2.77 billion, it would greatly assist this court to have the reports of two valuers as court-appointed experts in order to arrive at its decision in the appeal. For completeness, the appellants seek the following orders as specified in the notice of application:

"(1) Menurut A 40 k 1 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012, dua orang penilai berdaftar iaitu Tuan Haji Abdul Khalid bin Abdul Rahman dari Tetuan Assetz Sdn Bhd dan seorang penilai dari Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta Johor Bahru dilantik untuk memberi laporan kepada mahkamah yang mulia ini berkenaan 61 lot tanah yang menjadi subjek perkara rayuan ini dan untuk membantu mahkamah berkenaan perkara-perkara berkaitan isu penilaian hartanah;

(2) Yuran professional kedua-dua penilai tersebut ditetapkann oleh mahkamah yang mulia ini menurut A 40 k 5 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012;

(3) Lain-lain perintah atau relif yang difikirkan sesuai dan wajar oleh mahkamah yang mulia ini;

(4) Kos permohonan ini dalam kausa.

Alasan-alasan membuat permohonan ini adalah bahawa laporan pakar penilaian diperlukan untuk membantu mahkamah yang mulia ini membuat keputusan di dalam kes ini."

[7] The respondent submitted, on the other hand, that the application by the appellants is misconceived for the LGA does not provide for the appointment of two experts to assist the High court to hear an appeal under s 145. Further, as the appellant already had a report on the said lands prepared by its appointed valuer (as previously submitted to the respondent) now tendered into court for this appeal, its request for the appointment of additional experts by the court w