In consequence, the Form 16F is not an instrument which is fit for registration because it has not complied with the conditions contained sub- 670 para (ii) of condition (b) and condition (c) of s. 301 NLC. Accordingly, the respondent was correct in rejecting the registration of Form 16F. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal was dismissed with costs.” [31] However, although the decision of Vernon Ong J (now FCJ) was 675 described as a “comprehensive and speaking judgment” by the Court of Appeal, it was overturned by the Court of Appeal, see Damai Jaya Realty Sdn Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah, Selangor [2015] 1 LNS 7; [2015] 2 MLJ 768 at para [16] and [17] on the premise that: 680 “the learned trial [High Court] judge had made much effort to literally interpret section 241A as well as section 301.” (emphasis added) [32] Under the doctrine of stare decisis the Court would be bound to a 685 precedent or an authority, to follow the Court of Appeal’s ratio decidendi of the decision of Damai Jaya Realty Sdn Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah, Selangor (supra) if the issues or facts in this case are similar, see Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 MLJ 149 and Pendaftar Muallaf Wilayah Persekutuan v Lee Chang Yong & Ors and another appeal 690 [2022] 1 MLJ 653 at p 661; [2021] 1 LNS 2079 where the Court of Appeal at paras [21] to [24] said: “[21] In determining the issue at hand, it is instructive to make reference to the trite principle of stare decisis and its application. There is a plethora of 695 cases on this doctrine and the oft-quoted case is the Federal Court case of Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 CLJ 577, [2012] 3 MLJ 149, where Mohd Ghazali Yusoff FCJ lucidly explained the principle as follows: 700 "[50] A precedent can be defined as a judicial decision which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases. A precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. A precedent that 705 must be applied or followed is known as a binding precedent. I would think that this court must follow its own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases and honour these rulings. After all, this court is the highest court in the country. The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental principle of English law, is a form of reasoning 710 and decision-making formed by case law. Precedents not only have persuasive authority but also must be followed when similar circumstances arise. Any principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. In short, the courts are bound within prescribed limits by prior decisions of superior 715 courts. Judges are also obliged to obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions. This legal principle is called stare decisis. Adherence to precedent helps to maintain a system of stable laws. Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. 720 The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis, i.e., to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law." 725 (emphasis added) [22] In the same case, the importance of strict adherence to this doctrine was emphasized in the following words: "[35].... It is of supreme importance that people may know with 730 certainty what the law is, and this end can only be attained by a loyal adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis." (emphasis added) [23] In a recent Federal Court case of Zaidi Kanapiah v. ASP Khairul 735 Fairoz Rodzuan & Ors And Other Appeals [2021] 5 CLJ 581, the importance of strict adherence to the doctrine was reiterated as follows: "[211] The importance of adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis lies in the fact that it has become the cornerstone of the 740 common law practiced in this country. It is fundamental that decisions of the courts, especially of the apex court, ought to be consistent, in the interests of finality and certainty in the law. Otherwise, the public and lawyers who have regulated their affairs in reliance on a ratio decidendi before it is overruled will face difficulty 745 and confusion in organising their affairs around such judgments and this in turn will affect public confidence in the Judiciary (see Dato' Tan Heng Chew v. Tan Kim Hor & Another Appeal [2006] 1 CLJ 577; [2006] 2 MLJ 293; PP v. Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 1 LNS 58; [1980] 2 MLJ 276. See also Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v. 750 Tay Chai Huat [2012] 3 CLJ 577; [2012] 3 MLJ 149)." (emphasis added) [24] Further, in an earlier Federal Court case of Dato' Tan Heng Chew v. Tan Kim Hor & Another Appeal [2006] 1 CLJ 577 Steve Shim CJSS 755 stated: "[2]... It is axiomatic to state that the doctrine of stare decisis has become the cornerstone of the common law system practised in this country. It is fundamental to its existence and to the rule of 760 law. It has attained the status of immutability. In Public Prosecutor v. Datuk Tan Cheng Swee & Anor [1980] 1 LNS 58; [1980] 2 MLJ 277, Mr. Justice Chang Min Tat had occasion to restate the doctrine in words which are poignantly clear when he said: 765 It is... necessary to reaffirm the doctrine of stare decisis which the Federal Court accepts unreservedly and which it expects the High Court and other inferior courts in a common law system such as ours to follow similarly. 770 [3] Judicial hierarchy must be observed in the interests of finality and certainty in the law and for orderly development of legal rules as well as for the courts and lawyers to regulate their affairs. Failure to observe judicial precedents would create chaos and misapprehensions in the judicial system. This fact was 775 certainly borne in mind by the Court of Appeal in Periasamy s/o Sinnapan & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1996] 3 CLJ 187; [1996] 2 MLJ 557 wherein Gopal Sri Ram JCA said: We may add that it does not augur well for judicial discipline 780 when a High Court judge treats the decision of the Supreme Court with little or no respect in disobedience to the well-entrenched doctrine of stare decisis. We trust that the occasion will never arise again when we have to remind High Court judges that they are bound by all judgments of 785 this Court and of the Federal Court and they must, despite any misgivings a judge may entertain as to the correctness of a particular judgment of either court, apply the law as stated therein. 790 [4] The observation is but a stark reminder to judges of the importance of adhering to the doctrine... (emphasis added) [25] The next pertinent question here is whether the decision in Indira Ghandi as alluded to earlier is the ratio decidendi of the case which 795 warrants strict adherence or mere per incuriam which is not binding upon the High Court and this court.” (emphasis by this Court) [33] Having set out the importance of adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, it would be opportune to set out at this juncture, that the facts in this 800 case is very much unlike those in Damai Realty (supra). The differences in the facts which led this Court to decide in the manner it did are as follows: i) the public auction in this case has yet to be carried out; ii) by reason thereto there is yet to be a successful bidder; 805 iii) and therefore, there is no purchaser who has paid the purchase price in full within the prescribed time let alone armed with a Certificate of Sale in Form 16F; and iv) in Damai Realty (supra) the public auction had been carried out, the successful bidder there had paid his bid of about RM48.5 810 million within the time allotted to effect payment and was issued a Certificate of Sale in Form 16F. [34] At the Court of Appeal, in Damai Realty (supra), Justice Hamid Sultan Backer JCA (as he then was) quoted from the following passage from 815 Badiaddin Mohd Mahidin & Anor v. Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd [1998] 2 CLJ 75 and acknowledged that the Federal Court had held that: “It is well settled that even courts of unlimited jurisdiction have no authority to act in contravention of written law. Of course, so long as 820 an order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction stands, irregular though it may be, it must be respected. But where an order of such a court is made in breach of statute, it is made without jurisdiction and may therefore be declared void and set aside in proceedings brought for that purpose. It is then entirely open to the court, upon the illegality being 825 clearly shown, to grant a declaration to the effect that the order is invalid and to have it set aside”. (emphasis added) [35] A careful study of the decision by the Court of Appeal can only be reconciled, with the greatest of respect, in my considered view that its ratio 830 decidendi is that found in the words of Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA at para [16] where he held: “The hallmark of interpretation and judgment writing in civil cases requires the court to consider justice, equity and good conscience in any decision 835 making process which jurisprudence has been incorporated into our jurisprudence by case laws. [See Debnarayan Dutt v. Chunilal Ghose [1914] 41 Cal 137]. Literal interpretation of section 214A as well as section 301, without balancing other provisions of NLC or Acts, case laws, Federal Constitution, etc. as well as the common sense approach 840 relating to justice, equity and good conscience will result in a perverse judgment. For example, in the instant case, a purchaser who had paid about RM48.5 million and who had been guaranteed good title for registration under NLC has been prevented by the respondent from registering the property. Justice, equity and good conscience must be 845 a starting and ending point to be considered in all decision making process and it is always subject to rule of law, and where the law is silent, the courts are obliged to deliver judgment according to justice, equity and good conscience, and at all times act within the framework of the rule of law and the Federal Constitution to preserve the integrity of the decision 850 making process. In National Union of Bank Employees v. Director General of Trade Unions & Anor [2013] 1 LNS 1534; [2014] 6 AMR 143, the coram of Court of Appeal consisting of Abdul Wahab bin Patail, Linton Albert and Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer in the interpretation of statute and the application of rule of law and Federal Constitution, had this to say: 855 "Rule of law in judicial decision making process necessarily means the court must give utmost consideration to the Federal Constitution and when interpreting a statute must not forget that (i) law under the Federal Constitution means substantive law and procedure; (ii) literal 860 rule per se is not the only tool to interpret statutes; and other provision of the law and tools have to be taken into consideration for example section 17A Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.” (emphasis added) 865 [36] In this case, the parties have yet to get to the stage in Damai Realty (supra). Therefore, to prevent any innocent would-be bidders and members of the public from being embroiled with the anxiety and stress of due process with its attendant time and costs on the assertion made by the Plaintiff and supported by the Estate Land Board, the Director of Lands and Mines and 870 the Registrar of Titles all of the State of Perak, which in my considered view, with respect, is in accord with the statutory provision of section 214A NLC and the Federal Court authorities of Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd (supra) and Gula Perak (supra), and given the antecedent history of litigation between the parties, it would accord with justice, equity and good 875 conscience to have the [statutory] condition prayed for by the Plaintiff put in place before the prospective auction is carried out, lest any unsuspecting member of the public were to successfully bid and find himself caught up in litigation between the warring factions with the docket of the Courts at every level filled up to address this issue. After all, prevention is better than cure. 880 The Bank, on the other hand, would not be prejudiced as it can look towards harvesting the late payment charges that continues to accrue. [37] Hence, at the risk of repetition, justice, equity and good conscience as well as common sense dictate that the condition be put in place before the auction takes place, lest any unsuspecting successful bidder be caught in 885 the quagmire of litigation all the way to the Federal Court to ascertain whether despite the express non-obstante clause housed within the provisions of section 214A NLC, a judicial sale, especially one that is yet to be concluded with the bid or purchase price paid and a Certificate of Sale in Form 16F issued, is exempt from the requirement to obtain approval from 890 the Estate Land Board and in the process run the gauntlet of addressing the issue of whether the judiciary is legislating instead of interpreting if such an exemption is given, see Kerajaan Malaysia v Syarikat Ismail Ibrahim Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] MLJU 52 where Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA said: 895 “[24…… In Malaysia, the judges by constitutional oath of office and within the framework of the Federal Constitution, can strike down an amendment to the constitution or legislation, etc.; that will not be usurping the function of Parliament but they cannot create laws in the pretext of interpreting statutes. If they do, it will be seen as a serious violation of 900 oath of office. [See Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad v. PP [2014] 4 CLJ 944].” (emphasis added) Conclusion 905 [38] Wherefore the Court granted a declaration that any successful bidder for any public auction whether held manually or through e-lelong in respect of the parcel of agriculture land held under PN 362666 (formerly known as H.S. (D) 20109), Lot 11445, Mukim Durian Sebatang, State of Perak Darul Ridzuan would require the approval of the Estate Land Board pursuant to 910 section 214A of the National Land Code (Revised 2020) Act 828 before the completion of the sale to take effect pursuant to section 267 NLC and that the condition for the approval of the Estate Land Board be expressly stated in the condition of sale to the proclamation of sale pursuant to subsection 258 (2) (a) NLC and with the Plaintiff not seeking any costs, that 915 there be no order as to costs. Dated: 29 June 2022 920 SuTiangJoo ( SU TIANG JOO ) Judicial Commissioner High Court in Malaya 925 Ipoh, Perak Counsel for Plaintiff : Wong Rhen Yen (together with Emily Wong and Tay Yi 930 Kuan) [Messrs Roshan] Counsel for D1 : Ratha Govindasamy (together with Ng Kar Man and Tan Li Gang (pupil in chambers)) 935 [Messrs Skrine] Counsel for D2, D3 & D4 : Siti Nora Binti Sharif [Perak State Legal Advisor Office] Watching brief for the liquidator: S Ravenesan (together with Siti Nur Amirah Aqilah 940 Binti Adzman) [Messrs S Ravenesan] [Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision] 945 Headnotes Stare decisis – whether the ratio decidendi of Damai Jaya Realty Sdn Bhd v 950 Pendaftar Hakmilik Tanah, Selangor [2015] 1 LNS 7; [2015] 2 MLJ 768 is that depending on the circumstances a literal interpretation of section 214A NLC is to give way to an interpretation that would be in accord with justice, equity and good conscience Land law – in carrying out a judicial sale of estate land pursuant to a Court 955 order for sale whether justice, equity and good conscience requires that a condition be set out in the proclamation of sale that a successful bidder would be required to secure the approval of the Estate Land Board as is statutorily required under section 214A National Land Code (Revised 2020) Act 828 so as to give advance warning to any would-be bidders 960