10 May 2024
The Plaintiff, being a sole proprietorship, lacked locus standi to sue in the business name; therefore Originating Summons No. WA-24C-144-09/2023 was dismissed because a sole proprietor must sue in his own name trading as the business and the adjudication naming the business does not cure this defect.
27 Sept 2022
Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove mutual mistake or fraud and produced no contemporaneous evidence or critical witnesses; the Novation Agreement validly novated Plaintiff's liabilities to PH 385 with assumption of liability constituting consideration; RM56,250,000 is treated as part of the Total Purchase Price under the Novation Agreement; no unjust enrichment established; claim dismissed and parties bound by the Novation Agreement.
7 Sept 2022
On the evidence the appellants proved ownership of the listed goods on the balance of probabilities via contemporaneous invoices/delivery records and no evidence was adduced to rebut forgery allegations; the respondents' ancillary arguments and related suit did not negate appellants' right to immediate possession; therefore the High Court's dismissal was set aside and a mandatory injunction was granted against R3 to compel return of the goods within the extended timeframe.
10 Jun 2022
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.
7 Dec 2021
The court found the plaintiff established the requirements under Order 29: registered ownership, unlawful entry and destruction of trees, and risk of irreparable harm with inadequate legal remedies; the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and an undertaking as to damages was unnecessary on the facts; accordingly an interlocutory injunction restraining defendants from entering the specified property was granted and costs were awarded against the defendants.
26 Apr 2021
Prayer No. (2) was refused because the requested stay was in substance an injunction restraining a government revenue-collecting agency and is barred by section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act and section 54 of the Specific Relief Act; additionally stay applications require special circumstances and ought to be heard inter partes so the Respondent may answer the evidential assertions, therefore the ex parte stay application was premature and properly dismissed with costs.
7 Jan 2021
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.
13 Oct 2020
The court upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and dismissed the interim injunction application because the subject matter stemmed from a petition that had already been heard and dismissed; no stay of that dismissal was obtained, rendering this court functus officio and the application barred by res judicata and/or an abuse of process; therefore there were no grounds to grant the injunction.