6 Feb 2026
The application was filed outside the three‑month period mandated by O.53 r.3(6) ROC and the Applicant failed to demonstrate good reason to permit an extension under O.53 r.3(7); therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits and the AG's objection was allowed, resulting in dismissal of the application.
22 Jan 2026
The Consent Order was set aside because the JMB acted ultra vires the Strata Management Act 2013 in recording an order that retrospectively amended share units and revoked strata titles without complying with the statutory procedures under the Strata Titles Act 1985; Section 417 National Land Code could not be used to circumvent the STA 1985; estoppel did not preclude challenge where statutory powers were exceeded.
29 Dec 2025
The application was dismissed because the statutory internal remedy in s33(1) did not apply (Vice‑Chancellor is not an 'Authority' under the definition), the Vice‑Chancellor has express statutory discretion under s24(7) to revoke deanships at any time, the appointment was an administrative domestic post not contractual, the applicant had no legally enforceable legitimate expectation or right to prior hearing or reasons, and there was no evidence of mala fide or abuse of power.
11 Dec 2025
Subsection 144(6) of Act 171, properly construed in statutory context and read with sections 127 and 133 and the Interpretation Act, does not authorise retrospective imposition of assessment rates; the phrase "such earlier date" permits earlier prospective commencement within the valuation cycle but not retrospective taxation. The Respondent acted ultra vires in imposing retrospective rates, compounded by the fact the valuation list had expired, and therefore the decision was unlawful and quashed.
14 Nov 2025
The court held the Applicant's signboards fell within the Advertisement By-laws' definition of "iklan" and were commercial in character; the National Council Minutes and Directive related only to premise licences under s.102(s) Act 171 and do not extend to advertisement licences; the MDC Guidelines are administrative and do not have the force of law to displace the By-law; therefore issuance of compounds was lawful and the judicial review was dismissed.
30 Oct 2025
Applying Obata, the court held the Letter of Approval issued under Regulation 11(3) HDR on 13.6.2017 remained valid because it was obtained before the execution of the SPAs; Ang Ming Lee is to be applied prospectively so earlier approvals stand; the Second Actor Theory applies; plaintiffs who signed SPAs with the approval annexed are estopped from collateral attack; consequently plaintiffs cannot claim liquidated ascertained damages and the defendant’s Order 14A application succeeds.
24 Sept 2025
Ordinary Resolution No.4 was ultra vires the SMA because the Defendant failed to plead or prove that parcels were used for significantly different purposes as required by s.60(3)(b); PD2 is a commercial development with common facilities accessible to all proprietors so no separate expense pools justified different rates; using differing charges to correct alleged inequitable share unit allocation is an impermissible collateral attack on the land office’s allocation and must be challenged by judicial review; therefore the multiple rates imposed were unlawful.
9 Sept 2025
Appeal dismissed because the Court found SPANS, not the 1st or 2nd Respondents, had the authority under Article 37(1) Sabah Constitution and Clause 9 of the appointment agreement to reduce/terminate the appellant’s State Public Service appointment; SPANS’ letters (MM5) effected termination effective 19.11.2020 and OM5 recorded that action, which in turn rendered the concurrent MPT appointment ineffective from that date; the respondents were therefore wrongly named and the High Court’s dismissal was correctly affirmed.
3 Jul 2025
Dismissal: Applicant, as developer and active participant in the JMB and First AGM, was party to and accepted the AGM minutes fixing MCSF which, when read with the SPA and DMC, validly set the rates; Tribunal is proper forum for some reliefs but applicant sought broader reliefs beyond Tribunal powers; failure to issue Form 5A did not invalidate the resolution in the factual context; the Applicant delayed seven years and is guilty of laches and filed the suit as a tactical delay to stall winding up proceedings; accordingly the Originating Summons is dismissed with costs.
23 Jun 2025
Although there is a serious issue to be tried on the validity of the Additional By-Law, the Plaintiff failed to show damages would be inadequate, the balance of convenience favours the Defendant performing its statutory duties, no mala fides or illegality was established, and the legal status quo is the continued enforcement of the duly registered by-law; accordingly the ad interim injunction was dismissed with costs.