HAMIDAH BINTI BAJURI v ORANG-ORANG YANG TIDAK DIKENALI YANG MENDUDUKI DAN/ATAU MENGUSAHAKAN TANAH NO. HAKMILIK PM11583, LOT 117047 MUKIM PETALING, DAERAH PETALING SELANGOR

Case Significance

Grants summary possession of land under Order 89 to a registered proprietor holding an indefeasible title under section 340(1) of the National Land Code, the occupiers having shown no lawful basis to remain and raised no genuine triable issue.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision concerns an application for summary possession of land under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, together with reliance on Order 92 rule 4. The plaintiff, the registered proprietor of land held under a stated title in the Petaling district of Selangor, applied for vacant possession of the land against a number of named occupiers and against persons unknown occupying or working the land. The application raised whether it was a proper case for summary possession under Order 89, and whether any triable issues existed.

The court addressed the land-law questions of the indefeasibility of the plaintiff's title and interest under sections 340(1) and 340(2) of the National Land Code, and whether that indefeasibility was defeated by any of the specified statutory grounds. It also considered the position of the occupiers as alleged trespassers, whether they occupied the land with consent, and the operation of section 341 of the National Land Code concerning adverse possession and unlawful occupation.

On the evidence, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the land and held an indefeasible title pursuant to section 340(1) of the National Land Code. It found that the occupiers had failed to demonstrate any lawful basis — whether through consent, licence or equitable right — to remain in occupation, and that their assertions, based primarily on the actions of a third party and administrative ambiguity, did not raise any genuine or arguable triable issue capable of defeating the plaintiff's statutory right to possession. In the absence of any credible defence or conflicting material facts requiring further inquiry, the court held that this was an appropriate case for summary disposal under Order 89. The judgment illustrates the use of Order 89 summary possession by a registered proprietor holding an indefeasible title where the occupiers cannot show a lawful basis to remain.