SETIAKON ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAK YAN TAI 2. ) MAK KHUM PHOI AMICUS CURIE MALAYSIAN BAR

SETIAKON ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. 1. ) MAK YAN TAI 2. ) MAK KHUM PHOI AMICUS CURIE MALAYSIAN BAR

The High Court's setting aside of the fraudulently obtained judgment in default operated retrospectively to render the replacement title void ab initio; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it purchased in good faith and for valuable consideration and was in substance the immediate purchaser or had constructive notice of the fraud, therefore its registered title was defeasible under NLC s340 and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
02(f)-55-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
APPELLANT: Setiakon Engineering Sdn Bhd; RESPONDENT: Mak Yan Tai; RESPONDENT: Mak Kum Phoi
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Case Number
02(f)-55-09/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment (federal Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Indefeasibility of Title, Torrens System, Fraudulent Registration, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Due Diligence of Purchaser, Nemo Dat Rule, Deferred Indefeasibility
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Indefeasibility of Title Torrens System Fraudulent Registration Setting Aside Default Judgment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Setiakon Engineering Sdn Bhd

APPELLANT

Mak Yan Tai

RESPONDENT

Mak Kum Phoi

RESPONDENT

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment (federal Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether setting aside a judgment in default operates retrospectively to render replacement title void ab initio
  2. 2 Whether registration under s89 of the National Land Code alone confers indefeasibility under s340(3)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was an immediate or subsequent purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's setting aside of the fraudulently obtained judgment in default operated retrospectively to render the replacement title void ab initio; the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it purchased in good faith and for valuable consideration and was in substance the immediate purchaser or had constructive notice of the fraud, therefore its registered title was defeasible under NLC s340 and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed