Gopal Sri Ram JCA

The appellant before us (defendant in the court below) had his defence and counterclaim struck out. He complains that his is an arguable case and hence he ought not to have been driven away from the judgment seat.

The relevant facts have been admirably summarised by the learned judge and I gratefully quote from her:

The plaintiffs and defendant are brothers. The plaintiffs are registered co-owners of the land which was transferred to them by their father Wong Hong. The land includes a 4 storey building, where their father used to occupy the ground floor. The defendant was invited to join the father then doing business under the style and name Hong Kee Trading. The defendant has remained in occupation of the said land till now. The plaintiffs being registered owners have demanded delivery of vacant possession by a letter dated 31 July 2004. The defendant refused to deliver vacant possession and hence the plaintiffs filed this legal action.

She went on to accurately summarise the case before her as follows:

[12] The thrust of the plaintiffs’ application was based on the fact that the plaintiffs are both registered co-owners whilst the defendant has been in occupation of