Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1765
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
STARK HOLDINGS INN BIKE LEASING PTE LTD – Appellant
Versus
PENGARAH JABATAN PENGANGKUTAN JALAN NEGERI JOHOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: JA-24NCvC-1976-12/2025]
A prosecution is instituted only when a court takes cognisance of an offence and the accused is called to plead. Failure to initiate such proceedings within the statutory period prescribed for seized property renders continued detention of that property unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Land Public Transport Act 2010 - Section 80 - Enforcement and seizure of vehicles - Requirement of prosecution within one calendar month - Interpretation of 'institution of prosecution' - Statutory interpretation regarding forfeiture and detention of seized property. (Paras 15, 29, 30)
(B) Legal Principles - A prosecution is instituted when the court takes cognisance of the offence and the accused is called upon to plead to the charge. The statutory requirement for prosecution within one month is mandatory, requiring strict compliance to justify continued detention of seized property. (Paras 36, 49)
(C) Innocent Owner Doctrine - While not the central ground for disposal, the court noted that forfeiture and continued detention of property belonging to a party that neither consented to nor participated in the alleged offence raises concerns of fairness and proportionality, requiring strict proof of statutory prerequisites. (Paras 51, 55, 60)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought a declaration that the seizure and continued detention of two vehicles used by a lessee for unauthorized cross-border passenger transport were unlawful. Although summonses were filed against the owner, no proceedings were initiated against the actual driver. The applicant argued that no prosecution was initiated within the one-month period required by the legislation, and that the owner was an innocent party unaware of the illicit activity.
Findings of Court:
The initial seizure was lawful based on the 'reasonable suspicion' threshold. However, the subsequent detention exceeded the one-month statutory limit as the prosecution was not instituted in accordance with established legal principles. The failure to charge the actual operator of the vehicles and the delay in serving summonses weighed against the lawfulness of the prolonged detention.
Issues: Whether the seizure was lawful, whether the discretionary refusal of temporary release was proper, whether the statutory requirement to institute prosecution within one month of seizure was satisfied, and whether an innocent owner can be held liable for continued vehicle detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'institution of prosecution' necessitates that the court has taken cognisance of the offence and the accused is called upon to plead. As this did not occur within the one-month window prescribed by statute, the continued detention of the vehicles became unlawful by operation of law.
Result: The application was allowed. The court declared the continued detention of the vehicles unlawful and ordered their release.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving seizure of vehicles for alleged unlicensed private hire operations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. seizure is lawful under s 80(1) if based on reasonable suspicion. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and with transparency. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. prosecution commences upon plea or court taking cognisance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 5. innocent owners are not liable for unauthorized acts of third parties. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 6. court order mandating release of vehicles due to unlawful detention. (Para 61) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an Originating Summons filed by the Applicant, Stark Holdings Inn Bike Leasing Pte Ltd ("Stark" or the "Applicant"), a company incorporated in Singapore (Registration No.: 201419069W), against the Director of the Road Transport Department, State of Johor ("JPJ" or the "Respondent"). The Applicant seeks two principal declarations: first, that the seizure and/or detention of its two vehicles bearing registration numbers SNT7085M (seized on 2 November 2025) and SNL8266T (seized on 5 November 2025) is unlawful and second, that the continued detention of the said vehicles for a period exceeding one month without any prosecution being instituted is unlawful.
[2] Having considered the affidavit evidence, the written submissions of both parties, I now set out my decision and the reasons for my decision.
Background
[3] The material facts, as gleaned from the Afidavit Sokongan of Mahasaravanan S/O Sandra affirmed on 23 December 2025, the Afidavit Jawapan Defendan of Zulhalmi bin Darwis affirmed on 25 February 2026, and the Afidavit Balasan Pemohon affirmed on 9 March 2026, are as follows.
[4] The Applicant is a Singapore-incorporated company carrying on the business of leasing vehicles for private hire. It is the registered owner of two Toyota Alphard vehicles: SNT7085M (approximately 2½ years old) and SNL8266T (approximately 3 years old), with a combined value approaching SGD400,000. Both vehicles are registered with the Singapore Land Transport Authority ("LTA") as "Private Hire (Chauffeur) Station" vehicles and are owned by the Applicant.
[5] Both vehicles were leased to one Jahfri bin Abdullah ("Jahfri"), a Singapore citizen bearing identity card number S833038D, pursuant to Vehicle Leasing Agreements dated 11 August 2025 (for SNT7085M) and 3 November 2025 (for SNL8266T). The leases were for private hire use within Singapore only. Importantly, Jahfri executed Letters of Undertaking ("LU") dated 11 August 2025 and 13 August 2025 respectively, by which he expressly undertook not to:
(a) use the vehicles as unlicensed taxis;
(b) carry paying passengers; or
(c) operate any cross-border chauffeur service.
Copies of the leasing agreements and LUs were exhibited as exh MS-1 to encl 2.
[6] On 2 November 2025, vehicle SNT7085M was stopped at the Inbound lane of Kompleks Sultan Abu Bakar ("KSAB") during an enforcement operation conducted by JPJ, Unit Operasi Cawangan KSAB, targeting Singapore-registered private hire vehicles operating in Malaysia without a valid operator's licence. At the material time, the vehicle was driven by Jahfri and carried four passengers, namely Tan Yquan Isaac, Yoon Wai Cheong Davier, Tan Cheng Quan (all Singapore citizens) and Leon Lim Jai Shern (a Malaysian citizen). The vehicle was seized under s 80(1) of the Land Public Transport Act 2010 [Act 715].
[7] On 5 November 2025, vehicle SNL8266T was similarly stopped at the Laluan Kereta Inbound, Kompleks Bangunan Sultan Iskandar ("BSI") during another enforcement operation. At the material time, the vehicle was again driven by Jahfri and carried two passengers, Ahmed Alireza Abdul Rahman (a Saudi Arabian citizen) and Lee May Yin (a Malaysian citizen). This vehic
