JUDGMENT

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

Facts of the Case

[1] The Plaintiff is the lessee of nine parcels of land on Langkawi Island, specifically including HS(M) 94 PT 29 ("Plot 94") and HS(M) 651 PT 32 ("Lot 51") Bandar Padang Mat Sirat, Kampung Kok, Daerah Langkawi, Negeri Kedah Darul Aman ("the Lands").

[2] This status is pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated 9 December 2012 ("the Lease Agreement"), entered into with the Langkawi Development Authority ("LADA") the registered proprietor and lessor.

[3] Under the terms of the Lease Agreement, LADA granted the Plaintiff vacant and unencumbered possession of the Lands with effect from 9 December 2012.

[4] In about July 2016, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, NAAM Sdn Bhd, had encroached upon and was unlawfully occupying and using parts of the Lands, specifically Lot 51, and later extended its encroachment to Plot 94.

[5] The Defendant, which operates a water sports business on "Paradise 101" (an island off Langkawi), was allegedly using the Lands as a launching base for its operations.

[6] The Plaintiff, through its related company, Benua Perdana Sdn Bhd, issued a Notice of Demand on 12 July 2016, to Naam Sports Sdn Bhd, informing them of the encroachment and demanding that they vacate the Lands and remove their belongings immediately.

[7] The Defendant responded via a letter dated 19 July 2016, apologizing for un-intentionally using the Lands to load and unload materials for Paradise 101 construction. The Defendant requested six months to complete the construction and pledged to vacate the Lands accordingly. An email on 21 July 2016, further sought permission to utilize the beach area.

[8] The Plaintiff claimed the defendant breached its promise to vacate and continued its unabated trespass, even extending its encroachment onto Plot 94.

[9] The Plaintiff's solicitors issued another Notice of Demand on 19 May 2022, demanding immediate vacation within seven days. The Defendant allegedly failed to comply with this demand.

[10] When the Plaintiff attempted to fence off the Lands, the Defendant physically prohibited this, issued a letter and lodged a police report on 16 July 2022. The Plaintiff asserts that these documents contained repeated admissions of the Defendant's trespass and encroachment.

[11] Due to the Defendant's persistent and unabated trespass, its failure to vacate, and the potential for a breach of peace, the plaintiff filed this Originating Summon (Encl 1) ("the Application") against the Defendant in this Court , wherein the plaintiffs claimed for, amongst others:

a) A declaratory order under s 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 that the plaintiff is the lessee of the said Lands (specifically Plot 94 and Lot 51) pursuant to the Lease Agreement with LADA;

b) An injunction immediately restraining the defendant, their employees, or agents from trespassing and/or continuing to trespass on the Lands;

c) An order requiring the defendant to remove and/or relocate all goods, equipment, machinery, and any other property belonging to the defendant from the Lands within seven days of the sealed Order's service;

d) An order requiring the defendant to forthwith surrender or deliver vacant possession and ownership of the Lands to the plaintiff within seven daysof the sealed Order's service.

[12] After the close of the affidavits, the defendant managed to convince the former judge to allow them to cross examine the deponent of the affidavits affirmed in favour of the plaintiff: Raja Noor Kamariah. The cross-examination was then conducted before me. Thereafter I have instructed the parties to put in their submissions and replies.

Submissions by the Plaintiff

[13] The essence of the Plaintiff's submissions is that the defendant appeared to admit to trespass in 2016. The Plaintiff highlighted that admissions are the strongest form of evidence and cannot be ignored, and the defendant should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate its earlier admissions. The Plaintiff cited the cases