1. ) LO SOOK MING 2. ) LO KOK KEE v ONG KENG BEE

Case Significance

Illustrates the exercise of the section 145 National Land Code discretion to dissolve an unworkable co-ownership between two deceased estates by ordering a sale of the jointly held properties.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application to terminate the co-ownership of several properties held between the plaintiffs and the defendant, brought by way of originating summons. The plaintiffs sued in their capacity as administrators of one deceased estate, and the defendant was sued as the executor of another deceased estate; the properties were four parcels in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur held in undivided shares between the two estates. The relief sought was menamatkan pemilikan bersama (termination of the co-ownership) under seksyen 145 Kanun Tanah Negara 1965 (section 145 of the National Land Code 1965), read with section 25 and paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the relevant rules of court. The court examined whether the statutory conditions in section 145 were satisfied and whether it was just and proper to order termination. It accepted that the co-owners could not practicably continue to hold the properties together: the relationship between the parties was poor, cooperation was impracticable (impracticable), and there remained a long unexpired period of the trust and will governing the properties. Finding that the requirements of section 145 had been met and that there were just and proper circumstances to terminate the co-ownership, the court held that the appropriate course was to end the co-ownership through a sale of the properties, which would do justice to both estates as co-owners. Exercising its discretion under section 145, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application to terminate the co-ownership of all four properties, with costs of RM10,000. The judgment is a useful example of how the court exercises its section 145 discretion to dissolve an unworkable co-ownership between estates by ordering a sale. In reaching that conclusion the court weighed the practical impossibility of continued joint management against the interests of both estates as registered co-owners, treating a court-ordered sale as the mechanism that best realises the value of the properties for distribution among the beneficiaries.