Low Hop Bing J:

Application

[1] This application demonstrates the importance of having in place a pool of legal knowledge in civil procedural law so as to put the horse before the cart and not otherwise.

[2]Vide ex parte originating summons in encl. (2), the plaintiff is seeking an injunction to restrain the first defendant ("D1"), its agents or employees from entering on two pieces of land held under Lots No. 4407 and 4408 respectively in the mukim of Air Panas district of Jasin (collectively "the Jasin land"), and from making any payment by way of compensation to the second and third defendants ("DD2 and 3") respectively.

Factual Background

[3] From the various affidavits filed herein, the relevant factual background may be unfolded as follows:

[4] On 23 April 1997, the plaintiff entered into two sale and purchase agreements with DD2 and 3 respectively whereby the plaintiff has agreed to buy the Jasin land from DD2 and 3. The plaintiff alleged that it has paid the purchase price to DD2 and 3.

[5] On 5 August 1999, the parties executed the transfer forms but the transfer has yet to be registered. The plaintiff claimed to be the beneficial owner of the Jasin land.

[6] On 24 May 2004, the plaintiff received two letters, both dated 10 May 2004, from the land administrator Jasin informing the plaintiff of an enquiry to be held on 27 May 2004 to determine D1's right to enter on the Jasin land and to assess the amount of compensation, respectively pursuant to s. 11 and s. 16 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.

[7] For brevity and convenience, a reference hereinafter to a section is a reference to that section in the Electricity Supply Act 1990 unless otherwise stated.

[8] One Piong Chee Yu, a director of the plaintiff, attended the enquiry. The respective representative of DD1, 2 and 3 also attended. The plaintiff's director alleged that he was not given the opportunity to raise the plaintiff's interest in the Jasin land and that the land administrator had in breach of the rules of natural justice failed to record his objection pertaining to the holding of the enquiry.

[9] At the enquiry, the land administrator made an order permitting D1 to enter on the Jasin land and also assessed the compensation in favour of DD2 and 3.

[10] On 28 May 2004, DD2 and 3 which are within the group of Kumpulan Emas Berhad ("KEB") through KEB notified the plaintiff of the above assessment by the land administrator.

[11] On 14 June 2004, the plaintiff had pursuant to s. 11(7) and s. 16(2) appealed to the state authority against the land administrator's orders. The appeal is pending disposal. There was no application for stay of the land administrator's orders.

[12] Pursuant to the land administrator's orders, D1 had entered on the land, felled the trees and plants, cleared the land and erected posts to demarcate the area for the purpose of putting in place D1's installations.

[13] All the defendants alleged,inter alia, that DD2 and 3 are the registered owners of the land and that the plaintiff had not completed the payment of the full purchase price for the Jasin land and so no transfer can be registered.

Enquiry Before Land Administrator

[14] In urging the court to grant the injunction, plaintiff's learned counsel Mr. AG Dicom referred to the enquiry before the land administrator against whom he had complained of denial of the rules of natural justice.

[15] Miss Raiza Zakaria contended for D1 that the plaintiff's application in encl. (2) is premature as the plaintiff has lodged an appeal under s. 11(7) and s. 16(2). She relied on Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Tekali Prospecting Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 CLJ 624 CA.

[16] DD2 and 3's learned counsel Mr. SK Leong associated himself with D1's contention.

[17] In my view, it is trite law that generally a judge hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction should embark upon the three steps set out by Gopal Sri Ram JCA in delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd