Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi ..TUNTUTAN SENTUL MURNI MENGHALAU PENDUDUK KG CHUBADAK TAMBAHAN DITOLAK


This is the html version of the file http://kl.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/kl.kehakiman.gov.my/attachments/J_22NCvC-950-08-2012_(Sentul_Murni_Sdn_Bhd_v_Ramlee_bin_AHmad)_(bth_1.3.13).pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.




IN THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(CIVIL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO. 22 NCvC-950-08/2012
SENTUL MURNI SDN. BHD
… PLAINTIFF
V.
RAMLEE BIN AHMAD
DEFENDANT


JUDGEMENT
(In respect of Committal proceedings)











Enclosure 22
This is the Plaintiff’s Application for an Order of committal against the
Defendant, for contempt of this Court, for disobeying the Order of the
Court dated 6.9.2012 (“the High Court Order”).

Background facts
On 6.9.2012 the Court granted the Plaintiff’s Application for an injunction,
which to date, the Plaintiff complained that the Defendant has continued
to breach such Order.

The High Court Order provided the following:
(1) That the Defendant, Ramlee Bin Ahmad, either on its own, its agents, employees or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, are bound until further orders, at the moment, from doing the following:

(a) Entering or crossing a plot of land which is part of H.S. (D) 81870 P.T. 5748, Mukim Setapak, District of Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory and the land area as shown in Appendix A hereto (“the Land”) and from invading the Land;
(b) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to erect or attempt to erect any structure, whether permanent or temporary on the Land;
(c) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to remove/move or try to remove/move any property or fixtures belonging to the Plaintiff on the Land;
(d) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to tamper/change or attempt to tamper/change the soil on the Land; 
(e) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to destroy or damage the property belonging to the Plaintiff ;
(f) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to threaten or attempt to threaten the Plaintiff, its agents, its employees or otherwise, whether
with weapons or without weapons;
 (g) To make, persuade, incite, conspire or encourage anyone else to harm or attempt to harm the Plaintiff, its agents, its employees or otherwise, whether with weapons or without weapons; and
(h) To interfere or cause interference with construction work carried out by the Plaintiff, its agents and its employees or otherwise on the Land.

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant is in contempt of Court as he has failed to comply with the High Court Order despite having full knowledge of the terms of the Order.

The High Court Order was indorsed with the penal Notice.

Court’s Decision given on 7.2.2013 regarding enclosure 22


The Plaintiff’s Application is dismissed. No Order as to costs. 






















4
Grounds for the Court’s Decision

1. The Defendant contended that there is no proof of personal service on him of the High Court Order and the Writ of Summons on the following grounds:

a) The Defendant’s accurate address is No. 170A, Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, Kuala Lumpur and not No. 179A, Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, Kuala Lumpur as stated in exhibit AW-7.

b) The covering letter dated 14.8.2012 referred to in exhibit AW- 7 stated that the Writ and Notice of Application were served by hand and by registered post. 
The Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Service did not state that the Defendant personally received service of the same and there is no proof of receipt of such documents by the Defendant.

c) The covering letter for the alleged service of the documents in paragraph b) above informed the Defendant of the Hearing as 23.8.2012 whereas the High Court Order is dated 6.9.2012.

d) The High Court Order was obtained by the Plaintiff on 6.9.2012 but it was served on the Defendant on 24.9.2012. 
Before it was served on the Defendant, the Defendant had received another letter from Pembinaan Kerry Sdn. Bhd.(“Pembinaan Kerry”) dated 19.9.2012 (exhibit RA-1 of Defendant’s Affidavit In Reply) which was not addressed to the Defendant, but to Persatuan Penduduk Kampung Chubadak Tambahan (“Persatuan Penduduk”) of which the Defendant is the Chairman. 
Pembinaan Kerry had requested the Persatuan Penduduk to give cooperation to the company to start work on the construction of 500 units of flats under the Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR), in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur.
On 24.9.2012 a representative of Pembinaan Kerry, Fazrul, came and met the Defendant and served documents from the Plaintiff’s Solicitors, Messrs Skrine
The Defendant refused to accept service of the documents. However, later on, upon advice of his Solicitors, Messrs Rashid Tasin & Co, the Defendant accepted service of the High Court Order from Fazrul and this is the first time that the Defendant was made aware of the High Court Order.

Under O.52 r.2B of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the ROC”), in all cases other than contempt committed in the face of the Court,“a formal notice to show cause why he should not be committed to the prison or fined shall be served personally”.

In paragraph 28 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit In Reply (1), the Plaintiff averred that in actual fact, the Plaintiff’s employee, Issa Bin Zulkepli (“Issa”) was the one who served the High Court Order on the Defendant. Fazrul merely accompanied Issa to effect such service. 
In my view, it is not material whether it was Issa or Fazrul who personally served the High Court Order on the Defendant. What is important is that Issa, the Plaintiff’s employee, was with Fazrul when service was effected personally on the Defendant.

The Court is satisfied that service of the High Court Order on the Defendant was regularly effected on 24.9.2012 and this is in accordance with the requirements of O.52 r.2B of the ROC.

As for the Defendant’s contentions that he was not served the Notice of Application pursuant to which the High Court Order was granted, to me that cannot be raised as an issue now since the Defendant did not apply to set aside such Notice of Application granting the ex parte High Court Order, within 30 days from the date of the Order.


2. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove on a standard beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant had breached the High Court Order.

In Houng Hai Hong & Anor V. MBF Holdings Bhd. & Anor & 3
Other Appeals [1995] 4 CLJ 427 the Supreme Court stated:

“Dalam prosiding-prosiding menghina Mahkamah, bukti standard yang dikehendaki adalah bukti di luar keraguan yang munasabah, dan di mana terdapat keraguan, keraguan sedemikian haruslah diputuskan memihak kepada orang yang tertuduh. Dalam ertikata yang lain, standard bukti tersebut mestilah sepertimana yang dikehendaki dalam satu kes jenayah.”.







The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has wrongfully entered and wrongfully taken possession of the Land belonging to the Plaintiff, and has wrongfully remained in possession of it. This has prevented the Plaintiff from fulfilling its contractual obligations to deliver vacant possession of the Land to the Federal lands Commissioner and delayed or obstructed the construction of 500 PPR low cost flats.

The main grounds for my Decision are based on the following historical facts involving the Land:

The Defendant has been living on the Land since the year 2000 i.e. for 12 years before the Plaintiff’s project was implemented.
The Defendant has remained on the Land based on the certainty and belief that he is not a squatter but is occupying the Land with a licence in equity. 

The Defendant relied on a previous Decision by the Court of Appeal, Sentul Murni Sdn. Bhd. V. Ahmad Amiruddin Bin Kamaruddin & Lain-lain in Rayuan Sivil No. W-02-593-98 given on 29.6.2000.

In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the occupiers of Kampung Chubadak Tambahan (in which the Land in the present case is situated) are not squatters but had been given permission and licence from the  State Authority and they can continue to occupy the Land. 

The Court of Appeal further stated that the Plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the said Land, can get vacant possession of the Land subject to payment of compensation to the occupiers of the Land for costs which have been expended by the occupiers to build and renovate their houses or, as an alternative, current costs according to the market value of their houses which have to be valued by an independent valuer agreed upon by both parties, or if they fail to agree, such valuer to be appointed by the Court, and all other incidental costs connected to the relocation of such occupiers.

The Plaintiff (SENTUL MURNI) did not appeal to the Federal Court regarding the Court of Appeal Decision.






In view of the above Court of Appeal Decision, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is in contempt of Court for not complying with the High Court Order.

It is clear from the historical background and facts, that the Plaintiff is only one of several occupiers of the Land in Kampung Chubadak Tambahan, and they are now occupying the Land with a licence in equity founded on the permission or consent given by the State Authority.

It appears to me that unless the Plaintiff offers compensation as stated by the Court of Appeal, the Defendant is allowed to remain on the Land. 


Going by the foregoing grounds, I therefore hold that the Defendant is not
in contempt of the High Court Order and ordered accordingly.


Dated 1 March 2013

-sgd-


( DATIN YEOH WEE SIAM )
Judge
Civil Division
High Court, Malaya, Kuala Lumpur


Counsels/Solicitors for the Plaintiff
1. Ms Sharon Chong
2. Mr. Nimalan Devaraja
Messrs Skrine

Counsel/Solicitors for the Defendant 
Encik Abdul Rashid Bin Tasin
Messrs Rashid Tasin & Co.
Defendant present