JUDGMENT

Abdul Rahman Sebli JC:

[1] The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the registered and beneficial owners respectively of two pieces of land under titles No. CL015492458 ("the CL Land") and No. NT013049806 ("the NT Land"). On 29 June 2007 they were given approval by Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu to carry out a residential development project on the said lands. The project comprises 71 units of terrace houses, 14 units of semi-detached houses and 13 units of detached houses. The 1st plaintiff has been offered bridging loan facilities in the sum of RM8.8 million by Public Bank Berhad for the project and is expecting a profit of RM15.5 million. However sometime in October 2007 the 1st plaintiff was informed by an officer of the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant intended to build high tension towers on the NT Land. Preliminary works on the lands commenced after the Earth Planning Approval was given by DBKK to the 1st plaintiff on 13 November 2007. The transmission lines would cut across the NT Land. The plaintiffs and their solicitors raised their objections to this plan but to no avail. They were only given assurances by the 1st defendant that their objections would be looked into.

[2] The 1st defendant proceeded with the project on the basis that they had obtained wayleave from the 2nd defendant to enter the NT Land for the purpose of carrying out works for the project. However the notice of wayleave was never effected on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' fear is that if the 1st defendant were to proceed with the erection of the high tension towers over the NT Land, the whole of the housing project will not become feasible as no purchaser would want to buy a house next to high tension towers. Unless restrained by the court the 1st defendant will continue to enter the NT Land and commence work to erect pylons for their electricity transmission lines and construct the high tension towers on the land. Hence this application by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:

1) An injunction to restrain the 1st defendant and/or its servants or agents from entering the NT Land for the purpose of erecting pylons for their electricity transmission lines and/or high tension towers pending the disposal of the action.

2) An injunction to restrain the 1st defendant and/or by its servants or agents or otherwise from continuing and/or performing any work for the purpose of erecting pylons for their electricity transmission lines and/or high tension towers on the NT Land pending the final disposal of the action.

[3] In resisting the plaintiffs' application the 1st defendant asserts, amongst others, that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the present suit and to apply for the injunction on the following grounds:

As against the 1st plaintiff:

a) The 1st plaintiff is neither the registered owner nor the beneficial owner of the NT Land.

b) As at the date of the filing of the suit and injunction application the CL Land has not been amalgamated with the NT Land.

c) The Development Plan is subject to the conversion, subdivision and amalgamation of the CL and NT Lands.

As against the 2nd plaintiff:

a) There is no evidence that she is the beneficial owner of the NT Land as the purchase price of the land had not been paid in full to the registered owner and vendor, one Wong Mui Eng timeously.

[4] It was submitted that on the materials before the court the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs fail to establish that they qualify as persons entitled to any legal character or to any right to any property at the time the suit was filed. The question is whether the court, in dealing with the plaintiffs' application for injunction, may properly make a final determination on the issue of locus standi at this stage. In this connection the recent decision of the court of Appeal in ; [2008] 4 MLJ 701; [2008] 6 CLJ 597 is relevant. The issue in that case is strikingly similar to the issue in the present case. In that case the High court had dismissed the appellant's appl