SUPERINTENDENT OF LANDS AND SURVEYS, KUCHING DIVISION & ORS v. KUCHING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

[2018] 1 SSLR 357

SUPERINTENDENT OF LANDS AND SURVEYS, KUCHING DIVISION & ORS v. KUCHING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, Abdul Rahman Sebli JJCA
[Civil Appeal No: Q-01(W)-386-12-2015]
23 January 2018

JUDGMENT

Abdul Rahman Sebli JCA:

[1] We heard arguments on 22 August 2017 and reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. We have now reached a unanimous decision and this is our judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they were in the court below, namely the appellants as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff.

[2] The appeal by the defendants was against the whole decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") in granting the following reliefs to the plaintiff, Kuching Waterfront Development Sdn Bhd:

(1) A declaration that the purported re-entry of Lot 276 Section 48 Kuching Town Land District ("the land") by the 2nd defendant was unlawful, invalid, null and void;

(2) An order that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants do pay to the plaintiff as compensation the sum of RM11,340,640.00 being the value of the land as at the date of re-entry on 13 February 2006 and improvement on the land in the sum of RM600,000.00 with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 13 February 2006;

(3) An order that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants do pay to the plaintiff exemplary damages of RM2,268,128.00 which represented 20% of the value of the land with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 13 February 2006 till full payment;

(4) An order that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants do pay global costs of RM200,000.00 to the plaintiff.

[3] The grant of reliefs (2), (3) and (4) was consequential upon the grant of relief (1), which relates to the first part of prayer (a) of the re-amended statement of claim. Except for prayer g(ii), which was pleaded in the alternative and prayer (i) of the re-amended statement of claim, the rest of the prayers were not granted by the High Court and no appeal or cross appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the decision.

[4] By electing not to appeal against the decision, the plaintiff is deemed to accept that it was not entitled to those reliefs that were not granted by the High Court. The reliefs sought but which were not granted by the High Court were the following:

Sign up to view full cases Login