JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

Introduction

(1) After having filed his writ and his statement of claim, the appellant (Ismail bin Abdullah) applied for summary judgment against the respondent (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC"). On 27 November 2006, the deputy registrar allowed the appellants summary judgment application.

(2) Aggrieved by the decision of the deputy registrar, the respondent filed an appeal to the High Court. On 10 December 2007, the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") allowed the respondents appeal. It is against the decision of the learned JC in respect to the O. 14 matter that the appellant appeals to this court.

(3) However, on 19 December 2006, the respondent filed an application to amend its statement of defence in encl. 46 after the deputy registrar had allowed the appellants summary judgment application.

(4) On 22 February 2007, the application to amend the respondents statement of defence in encl. 46 came up for hearing before the senior assistant registrar ("SAR"). On 12 March 2007, the SAR dismissed encl. 46.

(5) The respondent then appealed to the High Court and, on 6 November 2007, the learned JC allowed the respondents application to amend the statement of defence with costs without first hearing the respondents appeal against the order granting summary judgment.

The Background Facts

(6) Sometime in 1995, the respondent commenced the "wayleave" procedures under s. 11(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 against certain portions of lands in Kota Setar, Kuala Muda, Pendang and Kubang Pasu districts in Kedah for purposes of constructing the electricity supply lines from Gurun to the border (Malaysia/Thailand).

(7) Two portions of the appellants lands in Pendang were affected. The first was at Lot 1026 involving 1.442 acres. The second would be Lot 2062 involving 0.820 acres. To achieve its desired purposes, the respondent issued the requisite notices under s. 11(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.

(8) The appellant as the land owner objected to the "wayleave" exercise in so far as his lands in Pendang were concerned. An enquiry under s. 11(6) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 was then conducted by the District Land Administrator (hereinafter referred to as the "DLA"). By virtue of s. 11(7) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990, the DLA authorised the proposed utilisation of the appellants portions of the lands by the respondent and the DLA also ordered the respondent pursuant to s. 16(1) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 to pay the appellant compensation in the sums of RM10,124 and RM15,310 respectively for both portions of the lands respectively.

(9) The appellant appealed against the compensation sums ordered by the DLA to the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Kedah (hereinafter referred to as "MMK") pursuant to s. 16(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.

(10) The MMK acting as the State Authority under ss. 11(7) and 16(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 decided in favour of the appellant and varied the order of the DLA by requiring the respondent to pay the appellant the sums of RM247,808 and RM557,108 respectively for the two lots totalling RM804,916 as compensation and this information was conveyed through the Pengarah Tanah dan Galians (PTGs) letter dated 28 September 2005 (see pp. 501 to 503 of the appeal record at Jilid 3).

(11) The respondent refused to pay the sum of RM804,916 to the appellant in spite of the notice of demand dated 19 November 2004. The appellant had no choice but to file his writ and his statement of claim seeking for the sum of RM804,916 from the respondent. The appellant succeeded in his O. 14 application before the deputy registrar but was unsuccessful before the learned JC pursuant to an appeal by the respondent. Hence, the present appeal before us.

Analysis

(12) In a summary judgment proceeding, the defendant is required to satisfy the court under O. 14 r. 3(1) of the RHC that there is an issue or q