KL CITY GATEWAY SDN. BHD. (Dikenali sebelum ini sebagai Ritzy Gloss Sdn. Bhd.) v 1. ) Afnisar Bin Gustar 2. ) Gusniwati Binti Gustar Al-Hadj 3. ) Che Jah Binti Abu Bakar 4. ) Hasneeta Binti Mohd Hashim 5. ) Aziah Binti Omar 6. ) Mohd Suffian Bin Ibrahim 7. ) Syazrin Dinie Bin Ibrahim @ Abd Rahman 8. ) Rosminah Binti Osman @ Marzuki 9. ) Abdul Rani Bin Aman 10. ) Shaffie Bin Osman 11. ) Faziah Binti Ismail Basha 12. ) Hajah Halijah Binti Haji Mustaffa 13. ) T.J. Iskandar Bin Abd Aziz 14. ) Noo...

Case Significance

Confirms that a registered proprietor may recover possession under Order 89 against occupiers who cannot show consent or a licence, and that an unadjudicated challenge to the proprietor's title will not defeat a writ of possession where the registered ownership is admitted.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an attempt by a handful of defendants to set aside an order for a writ of possession obtained by a registered landowner in a redevelopment project. The plaintiff, a development company, had obtained an order on its originating summons for a writ of possession against all 109 defendants under Order 89 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, in respect of master titles connected with the redevelopment of Kampung Sungai Baru in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Four of the 109 defendants applied to set that order aside, and this decision concerns their application.

The court examined the basis of the plaintiff's entitlement to possession. It was clear from the land titles that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the land, and, significantly, the defendants themselves admitted the plaintiff's status as registered proprietor. The defendants' challenge to the plaintiff's ownership had not been adjudicated in any proceedings, and they had not shown that they occupied the land with the consent or licence of the registered owner. On that footing the court held that the defendants were, in law, trespassers on land belonging to the registered proprietor, and that an admitted registered title, unchallenged by any adjudicated claim, entitled the plaintiff to the summary remedy of a writ of possession under Order 89.

The court dismissed the four defendants' application to set aside the order for the writ of possession, with costs of RM3,000. It reasoned that Order 89 provides a summary route to possession precisely for the situation of a registered owner faced with occupiers who have no consent or licence, and that a bare, unadjudicated assertion of a competing claim to ownership is not enough to displace that remedy or to convert the occupiers' presence into a lawful one. The judgment illustrates that a registered proprietor is entitled to recover possession against occupiers who cannot show consent or a licence, and that an unadjudicated challenge to the proprietor's title will not defeat a writ of possession where the registered ownership is itself admitted.