Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service of statutory notices

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

Edham Bin Sakmad 1. ) Kinsamewa Sdn Bhd 2. ) Director Of Lands & Surveys, Sabah 3. ) Assistant Collector Of Land Revenues , Kota Belud

Citation

S-01(A)-182-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

S-01(A)-182-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that customary tenure under s.65, once validly created, is a permanent heritable and transferable interest under s.66 and is not extinguished merely because the heir did not continuously occupy or cultivate after the original holder's death; the Appellant did not abandon the land (he actively pursued title and timely objected) and the s.13 notice was invalid for non‑compliant service under Land Rules r.8, so the Director and High Court erred in treating the rights as extinguished; the High Court decision is set aside and declarations and orders in favor of the Appellant entered.
4 Feb 2026

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD GAN KIM HUE

Citation

BA-22NCvC-45-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-45-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted TNB’s corroborated photographic, inspection and technical evidence that a three‑phase underground bypass from the feeder pillar to the defendant’s DB existed, that the meter failed to record substantial consumption supplying Bitcoin mining equipment, that the registered account holder benefited and is liable, and that TNB’s maximum‑demand back‑billing methodology supported the proven claim of RM1,317,365.80; disputed service of s38(4) statement did not prevent adjudication on the evidence.
14 Jul 2025

BMW CREDIT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) PERTIWI SEMPURNA SDN BHD 2. ) AHMAD JAAFAR BIN AHMAD HAMIDEE

Citation

WA-A52NCC-5853-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-5853-12/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the totality of evidence — matching vehicle delivery note and agreement, payment of deposit and instalments, defendants' conduct including making a settlement offer, and proof of service of mandatory notices to the contractual address — defendants failed to raise a triable issue of non-delivery or vitiating conduct; accordingly summary judgment is entered for the plaintiff for RM197,509.48 with costs.
15 Jan 2024

Kerajaan Malaysia 1. ) DREAMEDGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) KHAIRIL ADRI BIN ADNAN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the Limitation Act defence could not automatically defeat a government tax recovery claim because the proviso to section 33 Limitation Act 1953 excludes proceedings by the Government to recover tax; Mahawira was distinguishable and the Court must examine service compliance under sections 96 and 145 ITA 1967 — finding the Second Defendant was not served in accordance with the Act so the claim against him failed, while the claim against the First Defendant proceeded and summary judgment was appropriate under section 106 ITA 1967 against the company.
21 Dec 2023

WEST COAST EXPRESSWAY SDN BHD 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 3. ) HOE VENTURES SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2144-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s38(4) LAA and found that the State Authority's concession of delayed service of Form LC (served over seven months after the award) amounted to special circumstances sufficient to enlarge time; presence of plaintiff's representatives at the enquiry did not negate the statutory requirement to serve Form LC and did not preclude granting extension.
22 Nov 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN LINGGI AGRICULTURE SDN BHD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN CHIN SU HIN

Citation

JA-29PB-395-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-395-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held Notice 51C was timely because actual delivery per postal tracking was 21.10.2022 and the objection filed 1.11.2022 fell within the 21-day statutory period; the Insolvency (Amendment) 2023 did not apply to this pending proceeding by virtue of s17 and thus s33B(2A) did not bar the objection; DGI is not required to prepare a separate report when issuing a s33A certificate, but in this case the DGI had failed to properly administer the estate (no meetings, no enquiries, no dividends, inadequate steps to locate debtor) and therefore exercised discretion unreasonably; accordingly the cou…
30 Jun 2022

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH, DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG 1. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan 2. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan(Sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Bagi Mendiang Suaminya Sivasegaran A/L Kandiah, Si mati)

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiffs' claims against the Pentadbir Tanah and KPTG were time-barred under s.2(a) PAPA 1948 because the causes of action accrued well over 36 months before filing; limitation under s.2(a) is mandatory and may be relied upon even if not pleaded. The court found no established fraud or mala fide that would invalidate the acquisition; non-service of Form E on the registered proprietors did not vitiate the proceedings where Form D was gazetted and Form E was served on the registered chargee (MARA) and where the proviso to s.11(1) and s.56 operate to cure omissions…
15 Dec 2021

NORHIZAM BIN MUSA PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-17-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-18-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-17-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-18-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because LADA was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H, its representatives attended the inquiry and it filed Form N, LADA qualifies as a 'person interested' under s37 LAA 1960 and therefore is entitled to object to the Land Administrator's award; consequently the Form N filed by LADA is valid.
15 Dec 2021

ABU BAKAR BIN ISMAIL PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH LANGKAWI

Citation

KA-15-11-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-12-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-15-11-01/2019 digabungkan dengan KA-15-12-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because LADA was expressly named in the Gazette (Form D), was served with Form E and Form H, attended the Land Administrator's inquiry and filed Form N, it satisfied the requirements to be a 'person interested' under the Land Acquisition Act 1960 and therefore had the legal right to object; consequently the Form N filed by LADA was valid and not null and void.
28 Oct 2021

NUR MAZLIN BINTI ABDULLAH MAJLIS BANDARAYA SHAH ALAM

Citation

BA-12BNCVC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCVC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the vehicles were derelict and that towing and detention under section 46(3)(a) of Act 133 were lawful without prior service under section 120; consequently conversion and declaratory challenges to compounds failed; however the Sessions Court's award on the defendant's counterclaim was set aside for lack of clear certified evidence to support the RM8,000 sum.