West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang 2. ) TEE YI TORNG

Case Significance

Reaffirms that a court order that is a nullity may be set aside at any time and is not defeated by delay or estoppel, applying Eu Finance Berhad v Lim Yoke Foo in the context of a land-acquisition order challenged under sections 43, 56 and 68 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application to set aside a High Court order made in land-acquisition proceedings, on the ground that the order was a nullity. The plaintiff, West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd, is a highway concessionaire and the ultimate paymaster in a land acquisition exercise under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the acquisition being for the construction of the West Coast Expressway. Being satisfied with the original compensation awarded by the Land Administrator to certain landowners, the concessionaire challenged a later order and applied to set it aside.

The issues the court addressed included whether the order contravened section 43 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, and if so whether that contravention could be validated by section 56 of the Act; whether the action contravened the finality provision in section 68 of the Act; whether the order was null and void and liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae; and whether the application was met by any time-bar or estoppel, given the delay in filing it. The application invoked, among other provisions, Order 42 rule 13 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

On the question of delay, the court reasoned that where an order of court is a nullity, an application to set it aside may be made at any time. It drew on the pronouncements of Justice Abdoolcader in Eu Finance Berhad v Lim Yoke Foo, cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in later authority, to the effect that where an order is a nullity the person whom it purports to affect has the option either of ignoring it or of applying to the court to set it aside. The court took the view that awareness of the order in 2020 did not prejudice the concessionaire's decision to apply only in October 2024 to set it aside, distinguishing authority to the contrary as decided on its own facts. The judgment illustrates the principle that a void order may be set aside at any time.