Ahmad bin Shafie Izham bin Shafie

Ahmad bin Shafie Izham bin Shafie

The High Court upheld the Magistrate: the plaintiff established registered temporary title and encroachment through JUPEM-approved plan and surveyor report; Section 83 was inapplicable because the plaintiff's survey was for temporary title, not final title; the defendant failed to show a better title or rebut the survey evidence; Exhibit P8 was admissible despite technical non-compliance with Order 40A because the defendant produced no contrary expert evidence. Therefore the Magistrate's judgment is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
KA-11(B)NCC-2-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Izh am bin Shafie; Respondent/plaintiff: Ahmad bin Hassan
Court
B
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 October 2020
Case Number
KA-11(B)NCC-2-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (trespass/land Dispute) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Magistrate judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Title Dispute, Better Title Doctrine, Admissibility of Expert Report, Application of National Land Code Sections 83 and 396, Temporary Vs Final Title
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Tort (trespass) Land Law Civil Procedure Evidence (expert Evidence) Surveying and Cadastral Law Trespass Title Dispute +4 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Izh am bin Shafie

Appellant/defendant

Ahmad bin Hassan

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (trespass/land Dispute) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant's building encroached on plaintiff's registered land
  2. 2 Whether Section 83 and Section 396 National Land Code apply (final title survey)
  3. 3 Whether defendant holds a better title that defeats plaintiff's registered temporary title

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Magistrate: the plaintiff established registered temporary title and encroachment through JUPEM-approved plan and surveyor report; Section 83 was inapplicable because the plaintiff's survey was for temporary title, not final title; the defendant failed to show a better title or rebut the survey evidence; Exhibit P8 was admissible despite technical non-compliance with Order 40A because the defendant produced no contrary expert evidence. Therefore the Magistrate's judgment is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Magistrate judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Magistrate's judgment affirmed including orders for demolition, damages to fence and surveyor costs as previously ordered