JAGADESH ROA A/L SUBRAMANIAM v WAKIL DIRI KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA KANIAH A/L LEDHUMANAN (SIMATI) PENCELAH KALAISELVI A/P SHANMUGAM

Case Significance

Illustrates when a court will permit a stranger to intervene in enforcement proceedings and stay an order for sale, where a consent order underlying the sale is credibly challenged as obtained unlawfully or by fraud and the interests of an estate and an illiterate party are engaged.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Hazizah binti Kassim JC, concerns an interlocutory application by a proposed intervener to intervene in an originating summons and to obtain a stay of an order for sale. The originating summons had been brought under seksyen 281 dan 257 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 (sections 281 and 257 of the National Land Code 1965) to enforce a lien-holder's caveat over land in the Sepang district, and on 9 September 2024 the Court had granted the relief sought, including an order for sale. The proposed intervener applied under Aturan 15 kaedah 6 dan Aturan 55 kaedah 16 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 15 rule 6 and Order 55 rule 16 of the Rules of Court 2012) to intervene and to stay the order for sale pending the outcome of a separate application in the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya to set aside a consent order dated 7 August 2023, which the intervener alleged had been obtained unlawfully and by fraud. A public auction fixed to be conducted by Ehsan Auctioneers Sdn Bhd had also been sought to be halted.

The Court identified several special circumstances justifying intervention and a stay. These included that three joint administrators of the deceased's estate ought to have been appointed before the consent order was recorded; a concern about the role of the defendant's solicitor in advising the defendant, who was illiterate; and the intervener's assertion that the solicitor who had represented the defendant had knowledge of the letters of administration, having earlier acted for the first and second administrators in the estate-distribution proceedings. The Court also noted that the suit founded on breach of contract had been filed more than six years after the deceased died on 27 November 2013.

Satisfied that these special circumstances warranted the intervention and a stay, the Court allowed the proposed intervener's application, with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of when a court will permit a stranger to intervene in enforcement proceedings and stay an order for sale, where a consent order underlying the sale is credibly challenged as having been obtained unlawfully or by fraud and where the interests of an estate and an illiterate party are engaged.