1. ) JACY ANAK TINTANG 2. ) SUP ANAK BAWONG MAYAN AK NAYANG

1. ) JACY ANAK TINTANG 2. ) SUP ANAK BAWONG MAYAN AK NAYANG

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' application was filed after the Order for Possession had been perfected (court functus officio) and was out of time under Order 42 r.13; additionally the appellants failed to establish occupation or legal interest required under Order 89 r.5/Order 15 r.6 and it was improper to conflate distinct procedural remedies in one notice, therefore the High Court decision was correctly affirmed.

Citation
Q-02(IM)-1014-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
1st Appellant: Jacy Anak Tintang; 2nd Appellant: Sup Anak Bawong; Respondent: Mayan Ak Nayang
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 July 2021
Case Number
Q-02(IM)-1014-05/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal at Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Intervention, Order 89 Rules of Court 2012, Functus Officio, Setting Aside Orders, Locus Standi, Time Limitation
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Native/customary Law Intervention Order 89 Rules of Court 2012 Functus Officio Setting Aside Orders +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacy Anak Tintang

1st Appellant

Sup Anak Bawong

2nd Appellant

Mayan Ak Nayang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal at Court of Appeal, Putrajaya

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non‑parties could intervene under Order 89 r.5 or Order 15 r.6 after an order for possession was made
  2. 2 Whether the court was functus officio when application to intervene/set aside was filed
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside the order for possession was time‑barred under Order 42 r.13

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' application was filed after the Order for Possession had been perfected (court functus officio) and was out of time under Order 42 r.13; additionally the appellants failed to establish occupation or legal interest required under Order 89 r.5/Order 15 r.6 and it was improper to conflate distinct procedural remedies in one notice, therefore the High Court decision was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court decision dated 20.04.2018 affirmed