An administrator lacks locus standi to apply for removal of a caveat without a registered interest under the Sarawak Land Code.

[1] We have read the draft grounds of our learned brother, Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer. However, with regret and respect, we are unable to concur with him on the outcome of this appeal. Hence, the grounds herein are the views of myself and my sister Justice Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid and reasons as to what we think should be the outcome of this appeal.

[2] This appeal calls upon us to construct a provision in a statute, namely s 177 of the Sarawak Land Code (s 177), which would determine whether the appellant/plaintiff has the locus standi to remove a caveat in the context of the (Land Code).

[3] The learned judge found that the appellant had no locus standi in the context of s 177 to remove a caveat on two parcels of land and hence dismissed the application by the appellant to remove the caveat. It is that decision which is appealed against by the appellant.

[4] We heard the appeal and reserved our decision as we were informed that there is no decision from this court on the interpretation of s 177 and the legal profession would benefit from a pronouncement together with full grounds from us. We have since further considered submissions from respective counsel and now give our decision and grounds.

Background Facts

[5] The appellant's father, one Haji Mostapa Asan, sometime in July 1986 entered a sale and purchase agreement to sell two parcels of lands, namely Lot 96 Block Muara Land District and Lot 107 Block 7 Muara Tebas Land District the lands) to one Balia Munir, who is the late father of the respondents.

[6] The consideration for the sale was in the sum of RM10,368.00 which was fully paid by the respondents' father. However, the sale was conditional on the written consent of the Director of Lands and Surveys to be obtained by the appellant's father, failing which the sum of RM10,368.00 shall be refunded to the father of the respondents together with a similar sum as liquidated damages and the sale and purchase agreement shall be deemed as null and void with no further effect. However, there is no provision in the sale and purchase agreement as to when the aforesaid consent is to be obtained.

[7] The respondents' father on 31 July 1986 lodged a caveat on the lands vide Instrument No L 8812/1986 (caveat).

[8] The appellant's father passed away on 6 August 1986 and no consent from the Director of Lands and Surveys had ever been obtained by him. The appellant became the administrator of the estate of his father on 27 September 2010.

[9] The father of the respondents passed away on 23 May 2012 with the respondents becoming the joint administrators of the estate of their father.

[10] The appellant on 16 February 2016 filed this application to remove the caveat lodged by the father of the respondents on 31 July 1986.

Grounds Of Our Decision

[11] As rightly pointed by the learned judge, this dispute can be resolved by determining the locus standi of the appellant in the context of s 177 which states as follows:

"Procedure for removal

(1) Any registered proprietor or any other person having a registered estate or interest in the estate or interest against which a caveat has been lodged, may at any time, if he thinks fit, apply to the High court for an order that the caveat be removed.

(2) The court, upon proof that notice of such application has been duly served, may make such order in the premises, either ex parte or otherwise, as in the circumstances seems just."

[12] The respondents' contention is simply that the appellant is merely an administrator of his late father without any registered interest in