A utility provider's duty under the Electricity Supply Act does not extend to supplying electricity to unlawful occupants, as this would infringe on property rights.

[1] This appeal essentially raises the question as to whether the appellant is obligated under subsections 24(1) and 24(5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (" ESA 1990") to supply electricity to occupiers of land upon request being made for the same, notwithstanding those persons not being entitled to occupy the premises which they seek to have supplied with electricity.

[2] The respondent pleaded case against the appellant is trespass for the supply of electricity to the occupiers and emplacement of conduits and elements incidental to the supply on the land without the consent of the respondent as the owner of the said land.

[3] The High Court found in favour of the respondent and held that the appellant was liable for trespass. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court.

[4] On 15 September 2017, this Court had granted leave for the following questions of law:

Question 1

Whether an action in trespass is maintainable in law when the period of the alleged trespass is for the same period when a stay order of the High Court was in force in respect of the subject land?

Question 2

Whether an action in trespass is maintainable against Tenaga Nasional Berhad ("TNB") for the supply of electricity, or for continuing to supply electricity, to occupants of premises on the subject land pursuant to ss 24(1) and 24(5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (previously s 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1949), upon a determination that the occupants are in unlawful occupation of the subject land?

Brief Facts

[5] The facts, which are mostly undisputed, fall within a fairly narrow compass and may be shortly stated as follows:

5.1 The dispute in this instant appeal concerns the supply of electricity by the appellant to occupiers of premises on 405 individual lots of land known as Lot 83, Grant 72, Mukim 72, Mukim Plentong, Johor Bharu ("subject land").

5.2 The subject land was purchased by the respondent on 15 May 1996 for the purpose of an intended development project. However, the intended project did not take off due to the presence of squatters on the subject land.

5.3 The squatters were supplied electricity by the appellant. There were 96 electricity poles erected by the appellant for the purpose of supplying electricity to the squatters. The appellant placed meters at individual houses and was charging for the electricity supplied.

5.4 In 2000, the respondent commenced legal proceedings against the squatters on the subject land to obtain vacant possession of the same. The respondent successfully obtained judgment against the squatters on 28 April 2003. ("the Squatter Judgment").

5.5 On 23 November 2002, the respondents solicitors issued a letter demanding the appellant to cease supply of electricity to the squatters and to remove all structures erected on the subject land.

5.6 On 28 April 2003, the High Court ordered the squatters to surrender vacant possession of the subject land to the respondent. However, the execution of the Squatter Judgment was stayed pending the squatters appeal to the Court of Appeal.

5.7 On 28 April 2004, the respondents solicitors sent a further letter of demand to the appellant, demanding for the appellant to cease supply of electricity and to remove all its structures on the subject land. This further letter of demand informed the appellant of the Squatter Judgment and had also enclosed the same.

5.8 The appellant did not comply with the said demands. The respondent then filed its claim against the appellant and two others. ("Trespass Claim")

5.9 While the Trespass Claim was pending, the squatters appeal against the Squatters Judgment to the Court of A