Gelang Emas Sdn Bhd v Mohd Rashidi Bin Abd Rashid (JA-24NCvC-629-05/2024)

1.

PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI YANG TIDAK DIKETAHUI ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN DAN Goh Gek Eng (No. KP Singapura: S0025641B /No. Passport: K1442144E) …PENCELAH YANG DICADANGKAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 10 – leave to intervene)

Before this Court is a Notice of Application (“Enclosure 10”) filed by Goh Gek Eng, a Singapore citizen, for leave to intervene in the main proceeding herein brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants via Originating Summons (“Enclosure 1”), which in essence is an action for summary possession of property under O.89, r.1 of the Rules of Court 2012.

Enclosure 10 is vehemently opposed by the Plaintiff.

Upon hearing counsel for both the Plaintiff and the Proposed Intervener, this Court allowed Enclosure 10 with costs in the cause. S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw

The following is the Court’s Grounds of Judgment for the said decision. Salient facts

Plaintiff is the registered and beneficial owner of the property held under HSD 139033 PTD 505 Mukim Jelutong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Negeri Johor with the address at No. 6, Jalan Gelang Emas 2, Taman Gelang Emas, 81550 Gelang Patah, Johor (“the Property”).

In or around 2017, the Plaintiff discovered that the Property has been occupied by persons unknown to and purportedly without a license or consent from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff then filed and served Enclosure 1 against the Defendant who in turn claimed that they are the lawful tenants of the Property which they rented from the Proposed Intervener.

The Proposed Intervener filed Enclosure 10 upon being made known of Enclosure 1 by the Defendant.

In her affidavit in support of Enclosure 10, the Proposed Intevener avers that the Property had actually been purchased by the her late husband by the name of Ng Khiam Teck via a tripartite Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 08.02.1991 between the latter as the purchaser and Yen Development Sdn Bhd as the developer and Gelang Emas Sdn Bhd (the Plaintiff) as the proprietor for the S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw Property. It is also averred that payment of full purchase price for the sum of RM53,000.00 had been made by the late Ng Khiam Teck for the Property.

The Proposed Intervener further avers that vacant posesssion of and the original title to the said Property had been handed over to her late husband.

Upon her husband’s demise, the Proposed Intervener was appointed as the sole executor of her husband’s estate vide a Grant of Probate from Singapore Courtn under Case No.FC/P135/2019. Application for the said Grant of Probate to be registered in the local High Court had been filed but still pending before the Johor Bahru High Court.

The Proposed Inteverner also avers that earlier on, her late husband had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 02.04.2014 in her favour appointing the Proposed Intervener to, among others, let or sublease the said Property including to sign documents to that effect, receive rentals from the said Property and appear in Court on matters relating to the Property

Thus, the Proposed Intervener contends that she has right to intervene in the hearing of Enclosure 1.

S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw

Upon carefully perusing through the cause papers and affidavits filed by the parties, this Court finds that the Proposed Intervener has met the necessary requirements under O15. r, 6 of Rules of Court 2012 to intervene in the main action as in Enclosure 1.

Order 15 Rule 6 of Rules of Court 2012 which provides that:- “6. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15 r 6)

A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.

Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application—

order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;

order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely—

any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.

An application by any person for an order under paragraph (2) adding him as a party shall, except with the leave of the Court, be supported by an affidavit showing his interest in the matters in dispute in the cause or matter or, as the case may be, the question or issue to be determined as between him and any party to the cause or matter.”

The said requirements, as commonly agreed from submissions by the counsel for the respective party, are as per the Privy Council’s decision in Pegang Mining Co Ltd. v. Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 where Lord Diplock in delivering the Judgment of the Board held as follows: “It has sometimes been said that a party may be added if his legal interests will be affected by the judgment in the action but not if his commercial interests only would be affected. While their Lordships agree that the mere fact that a person is likely to be better off financially if a case is decided one wav rather than another is not a sufficient around to entitle him to be added as a party, they do not find the dichotomy between ‘legal’ and ‘commercial’ interests helpful. A better way of expressing the test is: will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in the action?..”

This Court observes that the main contention of the Plaintiff in resisting Enclosure 10 centers on the validity of the aforementioned tripartite Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 08.02.1991 where the Plaintiff contends that the there is no common seal under the S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw purported signature of the Plaintiff and the signatures of the Vendor and Proprietor which appear to be similar despite their identities are distinct are even suspected. Further, due to the title to the said Property is still under the Plaintiff’s name, that according to the Plaintifs would negate any assertion of rights by the Proposed Intervener to the said Property.

In my view, the position taken by the Plaintiff in opposing Enclosure 10 is too harsh to be taken as a sound objection in order for it to be sustained under the facts and circumstances of the case.

More over, the documents produced before this Court have raised a competing interest between the Plaintiff and the Proposed Intervener over the said Property which cannot by any stretch of imagination be said as commercial or indirect per se.

In this regard, perhaps the proper test to be applied under the circumstances should remain as it is formulated by Lord Diplock in Pegang Mining (supra) that “will his rights against or liabilities to any party to the action in respect of the subject matter of the action be directly affected by any order which may be made in this action?”.

Thus, applying the said test to the instant matter, I am satisfied that the Proposed Intervener should be allowed to intervene in the hearing of Enclosure 1. After all, allowing Enclosure 10 is certainly not to be the end of the matter in the main action. Parties will have their chance to ventilate on the so-called competing interest over the said Property. S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw Conclusion

Based on the reasons as adumbrated above, this Court allows Enclosure 10 with costs in the cause. Further date is also set for the continuance of proceeding in respect of Enclosure 1. Dated: 24.01.2026 ………………………………………….. Noor Hisham Bin Ismail Judge Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru For the Proposed Intervener: Messrs Syukor & Associates No. 39-01-D, Jalan Setia Tropika 1/17, Taman Setia Tropika 81200 Johor Bahru For the Plaintiff : Messrs K.S. Pang & Co Unit 8.02, 8th Floor, Menara TJB No. 9, Jalan Syed Mohd Mufti, 80000 Johor Bahru For the Defendant : Messrs Junaidah & Partners No. 7-01, Jalan Pembangunan Taman Desa Rahmat 81200 Johor Bahru S/N hsCABUhrhkixuLZvJExJw