Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1080
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SHAHNAZ SULAIMAN, JCA
PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS PERBANDARAN PENGERANG & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: J-01(A)-700-11/2024 J-01(A)-701-11/2024 J-01(A)-702-11/2024 & J-01(A)-703-11/2024]
A valuation list possesses a mandatory five-year statutory lifespan. Upon expiry, the local authority lacks jurisdiction to amend the list or levy rates. Any attempt to amend an expired list constitutes an act ultra vires the statute, rendering the resulting assessments null and void.
Headnote:(A) Local Government Act 1976 - Sections 2, 133, 137, 142, 144, 145 - Valuation List - Statutory lifespan - Assessment rates - Retrospective imposition - Jurisdiction - Duty of candour - A valuation list has a statutory lifespan of five years and ceases to have any legal force upon expiry if no new list is prepared or extension granted under the Act. (Paras 46, 64, 84)
(B) Judicial Review - Procedural requirements - Pleadings - Appellate courts have inherent power to consider issues of jurisdiction and illegality even if not raised in the lower court. (Paras 43, 44, 48)
(C) Statutory Interpretation - Saving provisions - Subsection 137(2) of the Act serves as a temporary saving provision to maintain the existing list while a new one is prepared, but does not extend the lifespan of the valuation list indefinitely. (Paras 77, 82, 83)
Facts of the case:
A local authority initiated an exercise to amend the valuation list to include new structures built by the appellants. Notices of amendment and assessment bills were issued, imposing rates retrospectively. The appellants challenged these decisions via judicial review on grounds of lack of authority, asserting the valuation list used for amendments had expired by operation of law, a fact not fully ventilated in the court below.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the valuation list had a mandatory five-year lifespan. Upon its expiry, without the preparation of a new list or a valid extension, the local authority lost all jurisdiction to amend the list or levy rates based upon it. The court also held that the failure of the public authority to disclose the expired status of the list constituted a breach of the duty of candour.
Issues: Whether the local authority possessed the statutory jurisdiction to amend a valuation list that had expired, and whether the appellate court could entertain this jurisdictional challenge despite the lack of initial pleading.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment under the Act can only be made to a current and valid valuation list. Because the list in question had lapsed by operation of law, it was ultra vires for the local authority to invoke powers under the Act; the amendments were thus void ab initio.
Result: Appeals allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving retrospective assessment of new erections on leased lands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 2. high court ruling on the validity of retrospective amendments to the valuation list. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 3. appellate court has jurisdiction to review legality regardless of original pleadings. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 4. public authorities have a duty of candour in judicial review proceedings. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 5. valuation lists expire after five years; amendments to expired lists are ultra vires. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 6. appeals allowed and high court decision set aside. (Para 89) |
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] These four appeals arise from the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner of the High Court at Johor Bahru on 31 January 2025 that dismissed the four judicial review applications filed by the Appellants to challenge the retrospective imposition of annual assessment rates by the Respondent, Majlis Perbandaran Pengerang ("MPP"), under the Local Government Act 1976 ('Act 171").
[2] The core dispute revolves around whether the Respondent had the legal authority under Act 171 to amend the Valuation List and impose assessment rates retrospectively on additional buildings and structures ("new erections") developed by the Appellants on their leased holdings.
B. Background Facts Of The Case
[3] The Appellants are companies within the Petronas group operating the Pengerang Integrated Complex ("PIC") in Mukim Pengerang, Daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor. Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd ("PRC") is the refining company incorporated under Company No 201301028727 (1058557-T), and is the Appellant in Appeals No J-01 (A)-700-11/2024, J-01 (A)-702-11/2024, and J-01 (A)-703-11/2024. Pengerang Petrochemical Company Sdn Bhd ("PPC") is the petrochemical company incorporated under Company No 201501003532 (1128864-H), and is the Appellant in Appeal No J-01(A)-701-11/2024.
[4] The Respondent, MPP, is the local authority with administrative jurisdiction over the Pengerang area effective from 1 January 2020 pursuant to Gazette Notification No 4796 dated 19 December 2019. The Respondent is a public authority established under the Local Government Act 1976 and derives its powers from that statute.
[5] The land in question is Lot No 11369, PN 77802 (formerly known as PTD No 5319), Mukim Pengerang, Daerah Kota Tinggi, Johor. The land is held under a lease from PETRONAS Hartabina Sdn Bhd to the Appellants for a period of 30 years expiring on 13 June 2046. The lease to PRC commenced on 14 June 2016.
The Developments And Certificate Of Completion And Compliance ("CCC")
[6] The Appellants developed additional buildings and structures ("new erections") on their respective leased holdings. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance ("CCC") for each development was obtained on the following dates:
(a) Appeal J-01(A)-703-11/2024 (Pakej 30A) - CCC obtained on 2 December 2019 for Plot No 176.
(b) Appeal J-01 (A)-701-11/2024 (Pakej 6A) - CCC obtained on 4 February 2020 for Plot Nos 53B and 64B.
(c) Appeal J-01(A)-700-11/2024 (Pakej 4) - CCC obtained on 3 June 2020 for Plot No 24.
(d) Appeal J-01(A)-702-11/2024 (Pakej 1) - CCC obtained on 29 December 2019 for Plot No 25.
[7] The additional structures included various buildings, vessels, tanks, compressor shelters, substations, control buildings, pipe racks, piping, and flare structures. The parties do not dispute that these developments were completed and that CCCs were issued on the dates set out above.
The Valuation List And Notice Of Amendment
[8] The Respondent, through its Valuation Officer, had assessed the additional developments and determined
