Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public authorities protection act

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2024

1. ) SUPERINTENDANT OF LAND AND SURVEY KUCHING 2. ) GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SARAWAK 1. ) BISI ANAK JINGGOT 2. ) Collin Marayang 3. ) David Anak Ribut 4. ) Lisah (F) Anak Iban 5. ) Iba Anak Dagang 6. ) Nelson Ngelambai Anak Wam 7. ) Adrin

Citation

Q-01(IM)(NCvC)-245-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

Q-01(IM)(NCvC)-245-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the proper remedy for any deprivation of NCR resulting from alienation is damages under s.197 Sarawak Land Code (per TR Nyutan and Husli), that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alienation (evidenced by MACC report in 1995) so their claim was filed outside the statutory limitation under s.202 and PAPA s.2(a), that alleged fraud pleaded only in the Reply could not revive limitation, and therefore the declaratory reliefs were unsustainable and the action was struck out; the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order.
10 Jun 2024

BASRI BIN HUSIN 1. ) UNIVERSITI MALAYA 2. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA 3. ) DR. SHARIFAH FARIDAH BT SYED OMAR 4. ) DR. PREMILA ARUL A/P ARUMUGAM 5. ) DR. ABINASH KAUR A/P KARAM SINGH 6. ) DR. LEE CHEE KEAN 7. ) DR. RAVINDRAN A/L KARU

Citation

WA-22NCvC-741-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-741-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff's claims were time‑barred under section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 because the alleged negligent acts primarily occurred in November 2014 and the writ was filed on 12/11/2020 (approximately 72 months later) with no satisfactory explanation for delay; the Defendants are public authorities or their employees and PAPA's 36‑month limit is mandatory, therefore the claim was dismissed.
1 Nov 2023

KIM GUAN CHOONG SDN BHD GREENTECH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

P-02(NCvC)(W)-134-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-02(NCvC)(W)-134-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellate court upheld High Court fact findings: appellant failed to prove fraud or conspiracy by clear and convincing evidence; S&P and subsequent transfers valid and enforceable (R2’s acts validated by apparent authority/Turquand and Companies Act s127); appellant’s claims were time-barred under Limitation Act s9 and s29 and barred by laches for equitable relief; R1 and R8 protected by PAPA s2; R10 acquired indefeasible title as bona fide purchaser for value under NLC s340(3); therefore appeals dismissed and costs awarded.
14 Nov 2022

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court rejected the defendant's request to postpone the plaintiffs' summary judgment because the defendant filed Enclosure 30 belatedly, failed to show exceptional circumstances, the social purpose of Schedule H favoured timely resolution for purchasers, there was no risk of irreparable injustice to the defendant, and claims against the proposed public authority co-defendants were likely time-barred, so disposal of the summary judgment ought not be delayed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) SUPERINTENDANT OF LAND AND SURVEY KUCHING 2. ) GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SARAWAK 1. ) BISI ANAK JINGGOT 2. ) Collin Marayang 3. ) David Anak Ribut 4. ) Lisah (F) Anak Iban 5. ) Iba Anak Dagang 6. ) Nelson Ngelambai Anak Wam 7. ) Adrin

BASRI BIN HUSIN 1. ) UNIVERSITI MALAYA 2. ) PUSAT PERUBATAN UNIVERSITI MALAYA 3. ) DR. SHARIFAH FARIDAH BT SYED OMAR 4. ) DR. PREMILA ARUL A/P ARUMUGAM 5. ) DR. ABINASH KAUR A/P KARAM SINGH 6. ) DR. LEE CHEE KEAN 7. ) DR. RAVINDRAN A/L KARU

KIM GUAN CHOONG SDN BHD GREENTECH INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

BA-22NCvC-292-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)