The court ruled that the registered owner's rights to repossess land are absolute against unauthorized occupiers, emphasizing that squatters hold no claim under the law or equity.

Preliminary

[1] By way of the Originating Summons [Enclosure 1], the plaintiff is seeking an order for the recovery of possession of the land in dispute pursuant to O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC 2012"). The plaintiff is also seeking a declaration that the defendants' occupation of the land was unlawful and for the defendants to be held liable for the costs related to restoring the land.

[2] The plaintiff is the registered owner of the land.

[3] In opposition to encl 1, the defendants claim that they have been granted a licence coupled with equity to occupy the land.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[4] The plaintiff is the registered owner of the land measuring approximately 12064.511 square meters, which is known as H.S.(D) 123352, No P.T. 50009, Seksyen 90, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ("land").

[5] The plaintiff acquired the land from the State Government on 13 July 2023.

[6] The land was owned by the government prior to its transfer to the plaintiff.

[7] In this case, the defendants were named as squatters by the plaintiff, but they allege that they are actually two temples built on the land. The Persatuan Penganut Wong Siong Tong, Jalan Peel, Kuala Lumpur, as well as the Penganut Dewa Liu San Qian Tian, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur ("Associations") have been said to be responsible for managing the two temples in that respect.

Court's Analysis And Findings

[8] As a starting point, O 89 r 1 of the ROC 2012 provides as follows:

"Proceedings to be brought by originating summons (O 89, r 1)

1. Where a person claims possession of land which he alleges is occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation without his licence or consent or that of any predecessor in title of his, the proceedings may be brought by originating summons in accordance with the provisions of this Order."

[9] Furthermore, a summary application for possession of land is applicable when a land owner seeks possession of land from a party that unlawfully occupies it. As a reference on this matter, the case of Esso Malaysia Bhd v. Hills Agency (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors 1993 MarsdenLR 862 ; 1993 MarsdenLR 1544 ; provides clear guidance. According to His Lordship Idris Yusoff J:

"The law is settled that the summary proceedings for possession of land can be employed in a situation where a person entitled to possession of the land claims possession of such land occupied by another person without his licence or consent or the licence or consent of any of his predecessor-in-title or in another situation where a person who has entered into occupation of the land with the licence or consent of the person entitled to possession of the land or any of his predecessor-in-title but remains in such occupation without licence or consent of the person entitled to possession or any predecessor-in-title of his. See McPhail v. Persons, Names Unknown 1; Bristol Corp v. Persons Unknown 2 and Greater London Council v. Jenkins 3. In the instant case, what the plaintiffs claim is that no doubt the defendants entered into occupation of the lands with their licence or consent but that licence or consent had already been withdrawn and terminated. Such being the situation, it is alleged that the defendants have no further right to continue remaining on the lands and the consequent use of the plant."

[10] The merits of the respective positions of the parties will now be addressed.

[11] As a first