Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mesne profits

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.
10 Sept 2025

1. ) TAN KEAN HOCK 2. ) TAN HONG POO @ TAN HONG POH 1. ) GAJJAN SINGH A/L BHAN SINGH PANNU 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI DAN/ATAU PENDUDUK-PENDUDUK premis No. 27 (Tingkat Bawah & 27A (Tingkat Satu) Jalan Haji Salleh, 51000 Sentul, Kuala Lumpur.

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-991-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-991-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The first defendant was found to be the monthly tenant (not merely a company occupant); the Notice to Quit addressed to him was valid because he did not challenge being named and evidence (draft agreement and conduct) showed he occupied and paid rent; he sublet without consent and failed to procure vacation by sub-tenants; consequently plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment for vacant possession and to recover mesne profits/double rent under s.28(4)(a) Civil Law Act 1956; no triable issue existed.
24 Jun 2025

SEMANTAN ESTATE (1952) SDN. BHD. 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) PESURUHJAYA 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

W-01(A)-668-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-668-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's order directing transfer and registration of the subject land to Semantan Estate under s 417 NLC was set aside because the sealed 29.12.2009 judgment did not order transfer, Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or exercise the implied liberty to apply at the material time, and beneficial interest alone did not confer a right to registration of title.
24 Jun 2025

XXXX PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-646-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-01(IM)(NCvC)-646-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court set aside the High Court's transfer order because the sealed order of 29.12.2009 did not direct transfer or registration in the name of Semantan Estate; that order only recognized a beneficial interest and entitlement to mesne profits, and Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or a consequential order at the material time; accordingly a transfer under s 417 NLC was not properly made and must be set aside.
24 Jun 2025

PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR XXXX

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court's order compelling the Registrar of Titles to transfer and register the subject land to Semantan Estate was set aside because the sealed 29.12.2009 order did not direct transfer, Semantan Estate did not seek clarification or exercise the implied liberty to apply for a consequential transfer at the material time, and retention of a beneficial interest alone does not confer a right to registration; accordingly the s417 transfer was unjustified and must be set aside.
24 Jun 2025

PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR XXXX

Citation

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-01(NCvC)(A)-519-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that s29(1)(b) GPA 1956 precludes mandamus or any order compelling recovery or transfer of land from the Government; the 2009 declaratory order did not authorise transfer and therefore the s417 NLC order directing transfer was set aside; mandamus appeal dismissed; the appropriate remedy is assessment of adequate compensation (to be assessed by the High Court) as at the date of possession (3 December 1956) with statutory interest and deduction of amounts previously paid.
24 Jun 2025

SEMANTAN ESTATE (1952) SDN. BHD. 1. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA 2. ) PESURUHJAYA 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

W-01(A)-668-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-01(A)-668-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held mandamus to compel the Government to transfer the developed public land was precluded by s29(1)(b) GPA 1956 because that provision forbids orders for recovery/transfer of land against the Government; the s417 NLC transfer order was not authorized by the 2009 declaratory judgment and is set aside; equitable relief available is monetary compensation assessed as of the date possession was taken (3 December 1956) together with statutory interest and deducting prior payments; matter remitted to High Court to assess adequate compensation with directions.
13 Jun 2025

SHANTA MOHAN A/L P. BALASUBRAMANIAM NADHRAH IMAN MOHAMMED RAFIQ

Citation

BB-A52-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52-1-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The tenancy expired on 30/01/2025 since renewal required mutual agreement and the defendant did not consent; the plaintiff had no legal right to remain in possession and no reasonable cause of action to obtain the reliefs claimed, rendering the plaintiff's claim frivolous and an abuse of process; there were no triable issues on the defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and mesne profits, so summary judgment was appropriate and the defendant was entitled to vacant possession and double rent from 31/01/2025 until delivery of possession.
25 Feb 2025

Perbadanan Kemajuan Iktisad Negeri Kelantan (PKINK) YBM GLOBAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

DA-A72NCvC-95-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-A72NCvC-95-04/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff met the preliminary requirements under Order 14 and established the claim for unpaid rent and utilities; Defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or raise triable issues with evidence, therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted.
21 Oct 2024

Vijayaletchumy A/p Samykannu M. NAGARAJAN A/L MUNISAMY

Citation

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCvC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the respondent was the registered proprietor on the title documents and no fraud or misrepresentation was pleaded or proved, the registered title is indefeasible under the National Land Code (ss.89 and 340); the appellant's allegations of a bare trust and reliance on payment of rates/utilities do not rebut the conclusive effect of registration and the Sessions Court correctly struck out the defence/counterclaim and ordered vacant possession and associated remedies, which the High Court affirmed.