TAN SENG GUAN v TEE BA @ TEE SIEW PEE

ja-22ncvc-41-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 17 September 2025 • JA-22NCvC-41-04/2024 • 20 min read
8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Illustrates the striking out of a long-dormant, unregistered trust claim over land on grounds of the defendant's indefeasible title and expiry of the twelve-year limitation period under section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1953.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns the striking out of a claim asserting that land was held on trust, on the grounds of an unsustainable cause of action and the expiry of limitation. The plaintiff had sought declarations that the defendant held three parcels of land in Pontian, Johor on trust for him and that he was the beneficial owner, and the defendant applied to strike out the entire claim under Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012). The court applied the principle in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd that the striking-out power is exercised only in plain and obvious cases. On the trust claim, the court held that the alleged trust over the land had not been established: there was no written evidence of a trust, no endorsement of the defendant as trustee, and no registration of any trust under section 344 of the National Land Code, and the plaintiff had taken no action and lodged no caveat for more than two decades after the transfer, so that the defendant's title was indefeasible, applying Low Tin Yong @ Low Yong Lian v Low Yong Thua. On limitation, the court held that any claim to recover the land was time-barred under section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, reasoning that a right left unused for a long period is presumed no longer to exist and that matters of right should not be left in prolonged uncertainty. The court was satisfied that the defendant was the beneficial owner and, in respect of one parcel, a co-owner, that the plaintiff could not dispute that title, and that the action disclosed an unreasonable cause of action amounting to an abuse of process. It accordingly upheld the striking out with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of an unregistered, long-dormant trust claim over land being struck out on indefeasibility and limitation grounds.

Why did the alleged trust over the land fail?

There was no written evidence of a trust, no endorsement of the defendant as trustee, and no registration under section 344 of the National Land Code, and the plaintiff had taken no action or caveat for over two decades after transfer, so the defendant's title was indefeasible under Low Tin Yong v Low Yong Thua.

How did limitation affect the claim?

The court held that any claim to recover the land was time-barred under section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1953, as a right left unused for a long period is presumed no longer to exist and should not be left in prolonged uncertainty.

On what basis was the claim struck out?

Applying Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corporation, the court found it a plain and obvious case: the claim disclosed an unreasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process, and it upheld the striking out under Order 18 rule 19 with costs of RM5,000.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (8)

MY (8)
[1974] 2 MLJ 245 [1991] 1 MLJ 409 [1991] 2 CLJ 871 [1993] 4 CLJ 7 [1994] 3 CLJ 20 [2007] 2 MLJ 761 [2009] 2 MLJ 102 [2025] 3 CLJ 28

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-22ncvc-41-04-2024)