NUZLAIDI BIN MOKHTAR DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

NUZLAIDI BIN MOKHTAR DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

On the undisputed documentary record the plaintiff is the registered owner and the drain, although acknowledged by defendant, was not shown to have been authorized or subject to reasonable written notice or lawful compulsory acquisition; absence of notice and lack of legal record of acquisition renders the works a continuing trespass and the defendant has no meritorious defence; summary judgment under Order 14 is appropriate and remedies in the form of declarations, purchase of the land at market value, assessment of damages, interest and costs are granted.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-455-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/defendan: Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur; Responden/plaintif: Nuzlaidi bin Mokhtar
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-455-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (tort in Rem / Land Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (interlocutory Determination)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff on Order 14 application; interlocutory judgment allowed.
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Compulsory Acquisition, Local Authority Statutory Powers, Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Tort Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Trespass to Land Compulsory Acquisition Local Authority Statutory Powers +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur

Perayu/defendan

Nuzlaidi bin Mokhtar

Responden/plaintif

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (tort in Rem / Land Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (interlocutory Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the construction of the drain by the local authority constituted trespass to the plaintiff's registered land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Order 14
  3. 3 Whether the local authority had statutory authorization or gave reasonable written notice before entering private land

Ratio Decidendi

On the undisputed documentary record the plaintiff is the registered owner and the drain, although acknowledged by defendant, was not shown to have been authorized or subject to reasonable written notice or lawful compulsory acquisition; absence of notice and lack of legal record of acquisition renders the works a continuing trespass and the defendant has no meritorious defence; summary judgment under Order 14 is appropriate and remedies in the form of declarations, purchase of the land at market value, assessment of damages, interest and costs are granted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff on Order 14 application; interlocutory judgment allowed.

Orders

  • Declarations in favour of the plaintiff as per paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the application
  • Order that the defendant pay for the entire parcel of land to the plaintiff at current market value to be assessed by a registered valuer (paragraph (iii))