DANGA BAY SDN BHD v 1. ) RENGANATHAN A/L KARUPAYA 2. ) YOGAMBIGA A/P SINNIAH 3. ) PARAMESWARI A/P SUBRAMANIAM

Case Significance

Illustrates the Order 89 summary procedure by which a registered proprietor with title under section 340 of the National Land Code recovers land from occupiers whose licence has been terminated and who are trespassers ab initio.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns summary proceedings for the recovery of land under Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 against occupiers who held the land without the registered proprietor's consent. The plaintiff, Danga Bay Sdn Bhd, sought vacant possession of a parcel of land in Mukim Tebrau, Johor Bahru, from the defendants, who occupied it. The defendants resisted on the basis that their occupation was lawful, relying on the long existence of a temple on the land, an alleged oral agreement, and the freedom of religion. The court examined whether the defendants had raised any bona fide issue that ought to be tried viva voce. It found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor with title protected under section 340 of the National Land Code, and that an earlier court order dated 26 February 2014 had terminated any prior licence to occupy, so that no subsisting right of occupation remained. The court held that res judicata did not apply to bar the plaintiff's claim, and that the issues the defendants raised had no merit in law and disclosed no triable issue warranting a full trial. It characterised the defendants as trespassers ab initio and, drawing on the settled principles governing squatters in Sidek bin Haji Muhamad v The Government of the State of Perak, reiterated that equity will not assist a squatter to resist an order of possession and that a registered proprietor is entitled to recover possession. On the balance of probabilities the court was satisfied that the defence lacked merit and allowed the plaintiff's Order 89 application with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the Order 89 summary procedure being used by a registered proprietor to recover land from occupiers whose licence had already been terminated. The decision reflects the settled position that long occupation and community use of land do not create a proprietary right capable of resisting recovery by the holder of a registered title.