NG CHOK LING v ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN BIN AMIRULLAH

ba-23ncvc-58-11-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 18 May 2025 • BA-23NCvC-58-11/2023 • 11 min read
9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Outcome

counsels for both parties, on the balance of probabilities, I allowed part of the plaintiff’s claim as follows – a) General damages for trespass amounting to RM50,000.00; b) The defendant is ordered to repair the damaged awning at the rear section of Unit No. 47 Jalan PJU 3/12F, Tropicana Indah Resort Homes, 47410 Petaling Jaya, within one month from the date of the sealed order served on the defendant; c) Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on RM50,000.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-23ncvc-58-11-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

TORT: Parties are neighbours – Whether the renovation and construction of the wall on top of the existing retaining wall were illegally carried out by the defendant, lacking approval or a permit from the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council, and not in accordance with the specifications provided by the MBPJ – Whether the construction of the wall on top of the existing retaining wall has affected the rights of the plaintiff to lighting and interfered with the plaintiff’s natural rights to the plaintiff’s property – Whether the defendant and/or the defendant’s contractor has trespassed and entered the plaintiff’s property while carrying out the renovation works - Whether the plaintiff has suffered damages and losses due to the construction of the wall by the defendant – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim for the general damages and special damages for trespass and damages for diminution of market value. EVIDENCE: Admission on issue of illegality – S.18(1) of the Evidence Act 1950. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Pleading – Pleaded facts – Whether the Court can consider an issue not specified in the Issues to be tried. LOCAL AUTHORITY: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to demand the demolition of the disputed structure without following the procedures specified by the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133), which amounts to an abuse of court process and a collateral challenge – Local Authorities’ powers – Mechanism for the local authority to take action if anyone begins the construction of a building without approval – Definition of building, building plans, nuisance, local authority and structure elements - Compensation damages and costs to be determined by court – The authority to mandate demolition or implement modifications vested in MBPJ as the local authority – Should the Court intervene to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff to demolish the wall when the local government is not a party to this suit – S.3, s.70(1) and s.101Act 133.

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates the protection the law affords a landowner against a neighbour's unauthorised construction: a neighbour who builds without the necessary local-authority approval and in a manner that trespasses on or interferes with the adjoining owner's rights may be ordered to pay damages and make good the damage, municipal approval being material to the lawfulness of the works.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns a dispute between neighbours over unauthorised construction and its effect on an adjoining property. The plaintiff and the defendant were neighbours in a residential resort-homes development, the defendant's property being located directly behind and one floor above the plaintiff's. The plaintiff complained that the defendant had renovated and constructed a wall on top of an existing retaining wall, and alleged that this had been carried out illegally — without the approval or permit of the local municipal council and not in accordance with the specifications the council required — and that the construction had interfered with the plaintiff's rights, including the right to light and the natural rights attaching to the plaintiff's property, and had damaged the plaintiff's awning. The court examined whether the construction had been carried out without the requisite approval, whether it interfered with the plaintiff's proprietary and natural rights, and whether it amounted to a trespass. It found in the plaintiff's favour on the claim, and its orders included damages together with interest at five per cent per annum on RM50,000 calculated from the date of the writ until full settlement, and an order requiring rectification of the damage, with each party to bear its own costs. Delivered by Judicial Commissioner Hazizah Kassim, the judgment is a useful illustration of the protection the law affords a landowner against a neighbour's unauthorised construction: a neighbour who builds without the necessary local-authority approval and in a manner that trespasses on, or interferes with the natural rights of, the adjoining owner's property may be ordered to pay damages and to make good the damage caused, and compliance with municipal approval requirements is treated as material to the lawfulness of the works. The decision shows the court translating an interference with a neighbour's light and natural rights, and damage to his property, into a monetary award with interest and an order to make good, giving a practical remedy to a homeowner whose enjoyment of his property has been diminished by his neighbour's unpermitted building works.

What did the plaintiff complain about?

The plaintiff complained that his neighbour, the defendant, had constructed a wall on top of an existing retaining wall without the local council's approval or permit and not to its specifications, interfering with the plaintiff's rights including to light, encroaching on his property, and damaging his awning.

What did the court order?

The court found for the plaintiff and made orders including damages with interest at five per cent per annum on RM50,000 from the date of the writ until settlement, and rectification of the damage, with each party bearing its own costs.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act
s 18(1)

Cases Cited (9)

UK (4)
[1947] 2 All ER 372 [1951] 2 KB 266 [1981] AC 446 [1994] 3 WLR 899
MY (5)
[1939] 1 MLJ 253 [1999] 2 CLJ 215 [2006] 6 MLJ 24 [2016] 2 CLJ 885 [2017] 8 CLJ 481

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-23ncvc-58-11-2023)