Rimdaya Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) The Government Of The State Of Sabah 2. ) The Director Of Lands And Surveys Department, Sabah

s-01ncvca-554-08-2022 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 11 September 2025 • S-01(NCvC)(A)-554-08/2022 • 19 min read

Catchwords

Background – Appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s Originating Summons seeking compensation for the acquisition of part of its land in Kota Kinabalu – Acquisition later revoked under Section 10A LAO 1950 – Appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 10A for contravening Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution. Ownership and procedure – Although a second gazette was published, there was no evidence the statutory procedures under Section 3(3) LAO 1950 (e.g. registration and endorsement) were completed – Hence, the acquisition was incomplete in law — the High Court’s phrase “merely on paper” was accurate. Compensation Issue – Appellant claimed entitlement to compensation under Section 6(1) LAO 1950, arguing that acquisition was complete after the second gazette – Appellant filed Originating Summons as Section 33 LAO 1950 requires claims within 12 months – Held, revocation under Section 10A was valid, no basis for compensation – Compensation only arises if the acquisition had not been revoked. Constitutionality of Section 10A – Court disagreed with Eastern Euphoria, which found Section 10A unconstitutional - Held that Section 10A deals with revocation, not acquisition; thus, it does not violate Article 13(2) – Upon revocation, ownership reverts to the landowner — compensation does not arise. Available Remedy – Under Section 10A(3) LAO 1950, the appellant may claim damages for actual loss or injury suffered before revocation – Legislative intent is to allow Government to revoke acquisitions no longer viable while ensuring fairness by returning the land to the owner. Conclusion – revocation valid and constitutional – no entitlement to compensation, only possible damages – Appeal dismissed with costs of RM15,000.00 subject to allocator fee.

Practice Areas

Background Ownership and procedure Compensation Issue Constitutionality of Section 10A Available Remedy Conclusion

Judges (3)

Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim Coram Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan Delivered

Counsel (5)

Michael Denis Tan & Co. Firm Calvin Joy Counsel Respondent Michael Denis Tan Counsel Appellant Mohd Saifurrazee bin Mohamed @ Hussin Counsel Respondent Wan Kher Ching Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Rimdaya Sdn Bhd Appellant The Government Of The State Of Sabah Respondent The Director Of Lands And Surveys Department, Sabah Respondent

Case Significance

Rimdaya Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) The Government Of The State Of Sabah 2. ) The Direct... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated September 11, 2025 (citation: s-01ncvca-554-08-2022). <p>A landowner appealed against the High Court's dismissal of its claim for RM58.5 million compensation after the Sabah government revoked the compulsory acquisition of part of its land under s.10A of the Land Acquisition Ordinance 1950. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with RM15,000 costs, holding that s.10A is constitutional, revocation returns ownership to the landowner so compensation does not arise, and the only remedy is damages for actual loss suffered before revocation.</p> The panel comprised Ahmad Zaidi bin Ibrahim, Alwi bin Abdul Wahab and Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan, with Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Calvin Joy (counsel for respondent), Michael Denis Tan (counsel for appellant), Mohd Saifurrazee bin Mohamed @ Hussin (counsel for respondent), Wan Kher Ching (counsel for appellant).

Key issues: Conclusion – revocation valid and constitutional – no entitlement to compensation, only possible damages – Appeal dismissed with costs of RM15,000.00 subject to allocator fee..

Summary

A landowner appealed against the High Court's dismissal of its claim for RM58.5 million compensation after the Sabah government revoked the compulsory acquisition of part of its land under s.10A of the Land Acquisition Ordinance 1950. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with RM15,000 costs, holding that s.10A is constitutional, revocation returns ownership to the landowner so compensation does not arise, and the only remedy is damages for actual loss suffered before revocation.

What was the outcome of Rimdaya Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) The Government Of The State Of Sabah 2. ) The Direct...?

<p>A landowner appealed against the High Court's dismissal of its claim for RM58.5 million compensation after the Sabah government revoked the compuls...

Statutes Cited

Federal Constitution
Art 13 Art 13(2) Art 13(3)