KEJENDRAN A/L NADARAJAN v KAVITAH A/P VATHUMALAI

Case Significance

Illustrates the flexible test for joining a proposed intervener as a party in caveat-removal proceedings under the National Land Code, following Chong Fook Sin v Amanah Raya Bhd — a real, directly affected interest is required.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam arises within an originating summons for the removal of a private caveat, and addresses an application by a proposed intervener to be joined as a co-defendant. The plaintiff had commenced the originating summons under sections 327 and 417 of the National Land Code to remove a private caveat lodged by the defendant over land held under the relevant title in Mukim Dengkil, Daerah Sepang, the dispute being connected to a sale and purchase agreement dated 11 April 2023. During the proceedings a third party filed an application (Enclosure 7) seeking leave to intervene and to be added as a co-defendant. All of the parties and the proposed intervener are natural persons and are referred to here by role.

The decision is confined to the intervention application. The central question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the proposed intervener to join the suit, and, more precisely, whether he had established a sufficient legal basis or interest to justify intervention. The court took as its guide the principles laid down by the Federal Court in Chong Fook Sin v Amanah Raya Bhd, together with the classic statement of the object of the joinder rule: that one of its principal purposes is to enable the court to prevent injustice to a person whose rights will be affected by the judgment, by ensuring that the matter is not adjudicated without giving that person an opportunity to be heard.

The court stressed that the exercise calls for a flexibility of approach rather than any rigid general proposition, and that the mere fact that a person might be better off financially if a caveat were maintained or removed does not, of itself, establish the interest required for intervention. The judgment is a useful illustration of the test for adding a party in caveat-removal proceedings: the proposed intervener must show a real interest that stands to be directly affected by the outcome, assessed flexibly on the particular facts.