JUDGMENT

Gunalan Muniandy JC:

(1) This case has a peculiar history of its own dating back to the 1980s where the subject matter of the claim (the subject land) had undergone a series of litigations culminating in the present suit by the current owner, the plaintiff (P). The trial proceeded in respect of the second defendant (D2) only, as the claim against the other two defendants had been settled.

Summary Of Facts

(2) The subject land owned by P, situated in the Mukim of Plentong, Johor Bahru, comprises 405 individual lots. It was purchased from one Oakfield Enterprises Sdn Bhd (Oakfield).

(3) In 1989, Oakfield brought an action against the occupants (squatters) on the subject land and obtained an order against them on 8 November 1989. Some three years later, Oakfield commenced an action against D2 alleging trespass onto the subject land in connection with supply of electricity to squatters. The case did not proceed but was struck off on 2 November 2000 for want of prosecution.

(4) Sometime in 1997, after having purchased the subject land from Oakfield, P commenced an action against the squatters by recourse to the summary process under O. 89, RHC 1980. The High Court granted the summary order but, on appeal, it was set aside by the Court of Appeal together with a direction that the action be converted to a writ action. Pursuant to the direction, P commenced a writ action at the Johor Bahru High Court vide Civil Suit No. 22-480-2000.

(5) In 2002, P instructed its solicitors to issue letter dated 23 November 2002 to D2 to forthwith cease supply of electricity to the squatters on the subject land and to remove all structures erected for the purpose of the supply D2 did not comply with the demand.

(6) On 28 April 2003 P succeeded in obtaining judgment in the Civil Suit No. 22-480-2000 where the court ordered that the squatters surrender vacant possession of the subject land to P. Execution of the judgment was however stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. By letter dated 28 April 2004 to D2, Ps solicitors demanded that D2 cease supply and remove all structures in connection with the supply. P commenced the present suit due to D2s refusal to comply with the demand.

(7) On 13 April 2007, the squatters appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision was dismissed following which an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was also turned down.

(8) Finally P proceeded to execute the judgment against the squatters on two occasions - December 2008 and January 2009 - in the presence of D2s representatives. In compliance with the court order, D2 duly removed all structures, transmission lines and meters from the subject land that had enabled electricity to be supplied to the squatters and thereby, ceased supply to them.

Plaintiffs Case

(9) The crux of Ps pleaded case was that by supplying electricity to the squatters on the land without authority D2 had:

(1) trespassed onto the Subject Land by the emplacement of supply conduits, structures and other elements on the Subject land connected to the supply of electricity to the squatters; and/or

(2) facilitated and/or aided or abetted the trespass by the squatters on the Subject Land on account of the 2nd Defendants supply of electricity to such squatters and also are liable as joint tort-feasors.

D2 (TNB)s Defence

(10) Defence counsel set out the broad defences raised as:

(a) TNB denies the Ps claim and puts P to strict proof of the claim;

(b) the occupants on the said land prior to its transfer to P were in lawful occupation of the same based on previously decided cases in respect of the land;

(c) TNB does not have in its possession information on the particulars of the occupants as P had failed to disclose the same;

(d) TNB is not able to prepare its defence with regard to the alleged trespass of the said land as P had failed to disclose the particulars of the parties that were purportedly supplied with electricity by TNB;

(e) In the a