Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 89 rules of court 2012

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

1. ) Tay Siew Meng 2. ) WONG SAN YOKE 3. ) TAY BOON CHEE Nur Allysya Tay Binti Abdullah @ Tay Boon Ping

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2395-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2395-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiffs held prima facie indefeasible title and had validly revoked the Defendant's permissive occupation on 27 August 2025; the Defendant raised no triable issues supported by admissible evidence to oppose summary relief under Order 89 r.1. Continued occupation after lawful revocation constituted trespass and the Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of trespass, an order for vacant possession within fourteen days, and costs.
5 Dec 2025

TEH CHAI PENG FIESTA UNTUNG SDN BHD

Citation

CB-24NCvC-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved registered ownership and on affidavit established that Defendant occupied without licence or consent while Defendant failed to produce credible evidence of a lawful lease or rent payments and was undermined by an unequivocal letter from a director admitting no tenancy and possible forgery; absence of any bona fide triable issue made Order 89 appropriate and warranted summary recovery of possession.
18 Sept 2025

DANGA BAY SDN BHD 1. ) RENGANATHAN A/L KARUPAYA 2. ) YOGAMBIGA A/P SINNIAH 3. ) PARAMESWARI A/P SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

JA-24NCvC-635-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-635-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the defendants are occupiers who became trespassers following the 26 February 2014 court order and have not raised any bona fide triable issues (implied permission, estoppel, oral relocation agreement or constitutional rights) that would prevent summary relief under Order 89; therefore plaintiff, as registered proprietor under s.340 NLC, is entitled to vacant possession.
23 Jun 2025

HARTANAH KINTA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD JAWATANKUASA SURAU AL-KARAMAH

Citation

AA-24NCvC-340-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCvC-340-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Order for Possession dated 23.10.2023 was lawfully and properly obtained because the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the subject land, the surau and fencing were proven to be on the plaintiff's titled land, service was validly effected by personal delivery and affixation, and the defendant lacks locus standi following deregistration and a prior withdrawal without liberty to refile; the setting aside application is therefore an abuse of process and is dismissed.
28 Feb 2025

KL CITY GATEWAY SDN. BHD. (Dikenali sebelum ini sebagaRITZY GLOSS SDN BHD 1. ) Md Shafie Bin Dikir 2. ) Rohani Binti Dikir 3. ) Ghazali Bin Dikir 4. ) Sharil Bin Dikir 5. ) Muhamad Iskandar Bin Dikir 6. ) Kl City Gateway Sdn. Bhd. (Dikenali

Citation

WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-2539-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A registered proprietor who holds indefeasible title following completion of land acquisition and subsequent alienation may invoke Order 89 to obtain possession from occupiers who remain without the proprietor's licence or consent; where acquisition steps (Form H, Form K, issuance of new titles) are completed and no triable issue is raised, summary judgment for possession is appropriate.
7 Feb 2025

NESTCITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD. (Terdahulunya dikenali sebagai ‘NESTCON HOLDINGS SDN. BHD.’) [selaku Wakil kepada Pemilik Tanah, Ching Teck Kee (No. Kad Pengenalan: 360719-71-5015) Menurut Surat Kuasa Wakil bertarikh 23.5.2016 1. ) PENGHUNI-PEN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2111-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2111-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary possession under Order 89 because the occupiers at best held non‑registrable licences or unprotected equities arising from purchases of undivided shares; such rights do not bind the registered proprietor who holds indefeasible title under the National Land Code, and there were no triable issues requiring a plenary trial.
21 Mar 2024

MAHATHIR BIN MUSTAFA POH KEE POU

Citation

M-04(A)-149-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

M-04(A)-149-04/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appellate court found that the defendant established serious triable issues (long occupation since 2008, sale/assignment documentation, sustained payment of ground rent to the predecessor landlord, payment of assessment and utility bills) which disentitled the applicant to summary relief under Order 89; summary procedure was inappropriate and the High Court's decision in favour of the defendant was correct and must stand.
27 Nov 2023

Daneeswaran a/l Nagappan Kiruba Raja A/l S.m. Kanagamany (Mej (R) Dr.)

Citation

BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-94-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff proved he was the lawful lessee under lease agreements and continuing rental payments; the Appellant/Defendant failed to prove any licence, consent or lawful title to occupy; the Appellant is a trespasser/squatter; the Sessions Court correctly applied law and O.89 ROC 2012 is the proper mode for summary possession against squatters; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment is upheld with costs RM6,000.
10 Jun 2022

DOYENVEST (M) SDN BHD 1. ) Penghuni-penghuni Yang Tidak Dikenali Dan /Atau Orang-orang Yang Tidak Dikenali Yang Telah Membina Jalan Akses dan Monumen Jirat Cina di atas Hartanah Yang Dipegang dh HS(D) 6048 PT 195693 Mukim Pedah, Daerah Jera

Citation

CB-24NCvC-65-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-65-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Preliminary objections on intitulement and jurisdiction were dismissed because the intitulement, supported by affidavits, did not cause prejudice or surprise; the plaintiff as registered proprietor established entitlement to summary relief under Order 89 ROC 2012 and there were no triable issues of fact or law (alleged state consent, disputed area and other factual disputes were either unproven or not sufficient to displace title). Accordingly the originating summons under Order 89 was allowed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
12 Jul 2021

UDA SENTOSA SDN BHD JONATHAN A/L SINNAPPAN & 127 OTHERS

Citation

WA-22NCVC-478-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-478-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff, as registered proprietor with indefeasible title, is entitled to vacant possession; defendants were occupying without licence or consent and are trespassers and illegal squatters; long occupation, municipal plates or utilities do not confer legal or equitable rights against the proprietor; no entitlement to compensation absent evidence, approval by land authority, or a counterclaim and no quantifiable loss proven.