Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

National land code 1965

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

Semantan Estate (1952) Sdn Bhd 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) PERSURUHJAYA TANAH PERSEKUTUAN 3. ) MENTERI YANG BERTANGGUNGJAWAB BAGI TANAH DI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN 4. ) MENTERI SUMBER ASLI DAN ALAM SEKITAR 5. ) KETUA PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN 6.

Citation

08(f)-250-07/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

08(f)-250-07/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The 2009 High Court Order was declaratory only, recognising the applicant's beneficial interest and right to possession against the Government but not directing transfer or creating a registrable title under the National Land Code 1965; applying established authority (including Yeo Ping Tieng), this is not a novel or public importance issue warranting leave, therefore the applications for leave to appeal are refused and the matter is remitted to the High Court for assessment of adequate compensation.
16 Apr 2025

HAMIDAH BINTI BAJURI ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI DAN/ATAU MENGUSAHAKAN TANAH NO. HAKMILIK PM11583, LOT 117047 MUKIM PETALING, DAERAH PETALING SELANGOR

Citation

BA-24NCvC-49-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-49-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered proprietor with Hakmilik Kekal, satisfied Order 89 requisites and holds an indefeasible title under s340(1) NLC 1965; Defendants failed to adduce documentary proof of any lawful licence, registered interest or statutory ground to impeach title and relied on informal/oral administrative tolerance which does not constitute legal consent; no triable issues exist that would preclude summary disposal; therefore vacant possession granted and Defendants must deliver possession within 30 days with costs.
16 Apr 2024

KOPERASI PEMBIAYAAN SYARIAH ANGKASA BERHAD ANTASHA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3993-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3993-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The instrument failed to comply with s.6 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 because no valuable consideration was stated or proved and the plaintiff was not a purchaser entitled to protection under s.6; therefore the instrument was not irrevocable for an indefinite period and the plaintiff's enforcement application must be dismissed while the defendant's challenge succeeds.
16 Jul 2021

YKK (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Johor

Citation

01(f)-23-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

01(f)-23-08/2019(J) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Clause 7, contained in a statutory qualified lease, does not create a private law contractual right binding the State Authority to an automatic 30-year renewal; renewal of state leases is governed by the National Land Code (notably s78(3) and s90A) and remains a statutory discretion subject to registration and administrative steps. The claim required public law remedy (judicial review) and specific performance against the State is barred; accordingly the originating summons was unsustainable and the appeal is dismissed.
5 Feb 2021

KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BERHAD PIONEER HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

AA-24NCVC-441-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCVC-441-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to file any affidavit and did not prosecute any proceedings timeously to enforce the alleged interest; consequently the Defendant's claim did not present a serious question meriting trial in circumstances where the balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiff; therefore the private caveats were removed and the Defendant ordered to pay damages under section 329 and costs to be assessed.
7 Jan 2021

Aliran Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCVC-445-10-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-445-10-2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The ARR was not gazetted as reserved land and no right of way had been created under the NLC; the plaintiff therefore had no legal right to be invaded; the plaintiff further failed to make full and frank disclosure of those material facts in its ex parte application and has no real prospect of success for a perpetual injunction, so the interlocutory injunction is refused and the ex parte order set aside.
1 Jan 1900

Serba Kemas Sdn Bhd 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Kulim 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman

Citation

KA-21NCVC02-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-21NCVC02-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the cause of action in negligence accrued on 12 October 2015 when the Court of Appeal grounds were made available; the Court of Appeal had found the 1st Defendant acted ultra vires the National Land Code so s.2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 did not apply; accordingly the Plaintiff’s claim was within statutory limitation and the pleading disclosed a reasonable and triable cause of action and was not plainly or obviously unsustainable, so the striking out application was dismissed.
MASTIRA SDN BHD V MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & 2 ORS

Citation

MASTIRA SDN BHD V MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD & 2 ORS
Court

Malaysian court

Because the charge in this case was an equitable charge (not registered under the National Land Code) the receivers and managers had power under the debenture to sell without a judicial sale; however the court exercised its discretion under s.21(1) Specific Relief Act and refused specific performance because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete the purchase (long unexplained delay and failure to pay the balance), and therefore the plaintiff's claims were dismissed and the deposit was forfeited.