J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff is a corporation sole established under the City of Kuching North Ordinance and is empowered under the law to collect rates due by property owner. The Defendant Kuching Plaza Sdn Bhd ("the 1st Defendant") is the registered owner of a shopping complex called the Kuching Plaza. The Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant is for the sum of RM2,280,060.93 for rates due in respect of the said property for the years from 1989 to 1998 and for RM677,661.13 for fees for non-payment of rates. The 1st Defendant contended (1) they are not an "owner" within the meaning of the Local Authorities Ordinance as to be liable to pay as it had subdivided the property into 155 parcels and sold them to various purchasers (which are named in the defence) who are under the sale agreements liable to pay the rates. Under those agreements the purchasers are liable to pay rateably accordingly to a formula worked out in the agreements. The Defendant further contended that the levy is "extortionate and/or unjustifiable, and/or punitive and/or arbitrarily levied". The Plaintiff then applied for those purchasers "to be added as Defendants to this Suit" and that four of them, Wung Wei Kee ("the 2nd Defendant", Datuk Sim Kheng Lung ("the 3rd Defendant", Anna Wee Chiak Sek ("the 4th Defendant) and Wong Yik Ka ("the 5th Defendant") be appointed to present all the named purchasers. There was also an application to amend, among others, the statement of claim to claim that the 1st Defendant and/or the added Defendants are all liable to pay the rates and fees. The applications were granted. The 3rd Defendant, 4th and 5th Defendants apply to have the amendment struck out with costs because they contended that there is no reasonable cause of action against them or that the claim is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of court. Their applications were dismissed by the Deputy Registrar and hence this appeal.

The arguments in this matter call for an answer to the question of (1) who is liable to pay the rates and (2) the amount he is liable to pay. Since the rates fall due under different years the law existing during the period concerned has to be examined. The Local Authority Ordinance (Cap 117) was in force until it was in 1998 replaced by the Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 (Cap 20). Under the Cap 117 Ordinance, the liability to pay the rates is imposed on "the person who is the owner of the property for the time being". "Owner" was defined this way:

"owner", when used in relation to any premises means the registered proprietor of such premises, or a registered co-proprietor thereof, or the person for the time being receiving the rent of such premises, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any other person, or as receiver, or, in the case in which there is no registered proprietor or such other person, the person for the time being in lawful possession of such premises;

This definition was replaced on 27 May 1989 by the following:

"owner" -

in relation to any land or building, means the registered proprietor of the land as defined in the Land Code and, if in the opinion of the local authority the registered proprietor cannot be traced, the person for the time being receiving the rent of the premises in connection with which the word is used whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for any other person or as receiver or who would receive the same if such premises were let to a tenant; in the case of subdivided buildings, includes the management corporation and any subsidiary proprietor: the expressions "management corporation" and "subsidiary proprietor" shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Strata Titles Ordinance, 1974;

The Cap117 Ordinance was replaced by the said Cap 20 Ordinance (Local Authorities Ordinance 1996) which came into force on 1 January 1998 and the definition was again amended, viz:

"owner" -

in relation to any holding, means the registered proprietor of the