Schedule
Jadual 1 Akta Makamah Kehakiman, 1964 dan dokrin “ultra vires” dan “rule of natural justice” dan hak-hak equity; Dan Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman No.: BA-25-3-01/2019 dan Perintah Mahkamah Shah Alam Tinggi bertarikh 21 Ogos 2020; Dan Dalam Perkara seksyen 33(1), (2) dan (3) Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956. Dalam Perkara Sijil Perintah Bayaran Terhadap Kerajaan bertarikh 15 Julai 2024 berjumlah RM491,420,048.74 setakat 25 Jun 2024; Dan Dalam sekyen 25 Akta Relif Spesifik 1950 dan/atau perenggan 1 Jadual kepada Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 dimana Responden-Responden telah gagal membuat apa-apa bayaran BETWEEN PNSB ACMAR SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 246708-M) APPLICANT AND 1. PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 2. PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KLANG 3. PEGAWAI KEWANGAN NEGERI SELANGOR RESPONDENTS AND PRASARANA MALAYSIA BHD PROPOSED INTERVENER GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction 1. This application in Enclosure 20 by the Proposed Intervener, Prasarana Malaysia Bhd, seeks to intervene in these judicial review proceedings. For this application, parties relied wholly on their written submissions and did not submit orally before this court. 2. Having considered the written submission by parties, and the documents filed in court, this court dismissed this application in Enclosure 20. This is the grounds for this court’s decision. Factual Background 3. The Proposed Intervener is a public transportation company which facilitates, coordinates, undertakes and expedites the implementation of public transportation infrastructure projects approved by the Government of Malaysia. The Proposed Intervener is also the owner of the Light Rail Transit Line 3 (“LRT 3”) project. For the purpose of the LRT 3 project, the State Authority had acquired a part of a piece of land pursuant to Section 3(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“the said Acquisition”). 4. The land acquired which is the subject matter of acquisition forms part of the larger piece of land held under Lot 31522 PM 307, Mukim Kapar, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan (“the said Land”). The said Land is owned by the Applicant, PNSB Acmar Sdn Bhd and is charged to Malaysia Building Society Berhad (“MBSB”). 5. The Second Respondent (Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang) initially awarded RM290,468,321.79 in compensation (Form H) for the acquisition of about 2 acres of land. The acquisition was subsequently withdrawn. Following the withdrawal, an enquiry was held on three dates (24.1.2019, 31.1.2019, and 13.2.2019). 6. On 13.2.2019, the Second Respondent awarded RM64,056,219 compensation to, among others, the Applicant (the “Impugned Decision”). 7. The Proposed Intervener then filed a Judicial Review (Shah Alam High Court JR No. BA-25-44-05/2019) seeking an order of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the Impugned Decision. 8. The Proposed Intervener filed a Form N application, leading to Land Reference No.: BA-15-147-07/2019. Similarly, the Applicant, dissatisfied with the Impugned Decision and compensation, filed its own Judicial Review (BA-25-3-01/2019) and a Form N, resulting in Land Reference No.: BA-15-146- 07/2019. 9. On 21.8.2020, the Applicant’s judicial review was heard first and allowed. The High Court ordered the First and Second Respondents to pay the Applicant RM266,972,174.00 and MBSB RM23,496,174.79, in line with Form H, plus 8% annual interest from 22.5.2018 (“High Court JR Order”). Consequently, the Proposed Intervener’s judicial review application, was rendered academic. 10. On 22.8.2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed the First and Second Respondents’ appeal and affirmed the High Court JR Order. Subsequently, on 6.10.2020, the Applicant filed an application for leave to execute/enforce the High Court JR Order (“High Court Enforcement Application”). On 4.1.2024, the Federal Court effectively upheld the High Court JR Order by refusing the First and Second Respondents’ application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. On the same day, the Federal Court also dismissed the Proposed Intervener’s motion to intervene in the Respondents’ leave to appeal proceedings. 11. On 26.3.2024, the High Court dismissed the Proposed Intervener’s application to intervene in the Applicant’s High Court Enforcement Application. On 25.6.2024, the High Court granted the High Court Enforcement Application in terms (“High Court Enforcement Order”). Subsequently, on 24.7.2024, the First and Second Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal against the High Court Enforcement Order. 12. On 14.8.2024, the Applicant filed Enclosure 1 seeking, among others, leave for a mandamus order compelling the Respondents to pay the sums awarded under the High Court JR Order and/or the High Court Enforcement Order. On 2.9.2024, the Proposed Intervener commenced proceedings in the Shah Alam High Court via Civil Suit No.: BA-22NCvC-356- 09/2024 (“Suit 356”) against the Applicant and the First and Second Respondents, seeking, inter alia, to impeach the High Court JR Order. 13. On 4.11.2024, the Proposed Intervener’s application to intervene and to stay the execution of the High Court Enforcement Order in the First and Second Respondents’ appeal before the Court of Appeal was dismissed. On 15.11.2024, the Proposed Intervener filed an application under Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 (“Order 14A Application”) in Suit 365, which remains pending hearing and disposal before the High Court. Analysis 14. The Proposed Intervener’s argument can be reduced to this. Since the Proposed Intervener is not only the owner of the LRT 3 project but also the paymaster of the land acquisition compensation, the Proposed Intervener therefore has a direct interest in the subject matter of the present judicial review. In other words, the Proposed Intervener has a direct interest by virtue of the amount of compensation awarded for the said Land. 15. In support of this contention, the Proposed Intervener cited section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 for the definition of persons interested and the Federal Court case of Cahaya Baru Development Bhd v Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia [2011] 2 MLJ 729 and Sistem Penyuraian Trafik Kl Barat Sdn Bhd v Kenny Heights Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2009] 3 MLJ 809. 16. It was argued that any order or further directions by this court in the present judicial review application will directly affect the Proposed Intervener, as it would ultimately bear the financial obligation should the application herein be allowed. 17. It is a fact that the Proposed Intervener had made multiple attempts to be heard and to intervene, but was consistently denied the opportunity. 18. The Applicant opposed this application in Enclosure 20 on the basis of Res Judicata and that Proposed Intervener has no legal interests in these proceedings. 19. The Applicant had filed the present Mandamus Application solely to enforce a final and perfected Judgment, which conclusively determined the parties’ rights after a full trial. The Judgment, upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, is binding and no further appeals are available to the Respondents. 20. According to the Applicant, the present application in Enclosure 20 is not only repetitive in nature but also marks the Proposed Intervener’s fourth attempt. The Applicant argued that the Proposed Intervener’s persistent attempts to intervene at every stage, despite clear and repeated dismissals, amounted to a blatant abuse of the court process. 21. Moreover, the reliefs presently sought by the Applicant are strictly confined to the enforcement of a perfected Judgment and involve only the parties bound by that Judgment. 22. The Proposed Intervener is not a party to that Judgment, nor does it possess any enforceable legal interest therein. See: Serac Asia Sdn Bhd v Sepakat Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd [2013] 5 MLJ 1; Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189. 23. In this regard, this court is of the view once a dispute between two parties has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are precluded from re-litigating the same subject matter, as the judgment attained operates as the truth between them; res judicata pro veritate accipitur. The doctrine is underpinned by public policy considerations, namely that it is in the public interest for litigation to attain finality. 24. In this regard, this court agrees with the submission by the Applicant that the matter before this court is seeking a mandamus to enforce a Judgement already obtained. 25. It was further argued by the Applicant that the Proposed Intervener has no legal interest in this proceeding. See: Pegang Mining Co. Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52; Hong Leong Finance v Staghorn & Other Appeals [1995] 2 MLJ 847. 26. This Mandamus Application is solely between the Applicant and the Respondents for the purpose of enforcing the Judgment obtained against the Respondents. In law, a writ of Mandamus is an order of the High Court compelling a public authority to discharge a specific mandatory duty imposed by law, where such duty has not been performed. See: Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] 4 MLJ 641; paragraph 1 of the Schedule of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. 27. In this regard, this court is of the considered view Prasarana as the Proposed Intervener lacks the requisite legal standing to intervene in these proceedings, which pertain exclusively to the enforcement of a final and perfected Judgment between the Applicant and the Respondents, being governmental authorities. Conclusion 28. This court is therefore satisfied that the Proposed Intervener’s application in enclosure 20 ought not to be allowed. This application to intervene is therefore dismissed. Costs of RM3000 to be paid by the Proposed Intervener to the Applicant subject to allocator. Dated: 8 Oktober 2025 SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN Counsels: For the Applicant: Goik Kenzu Christie Ling Chui Lin Messrs Goik, Ramesh & Loo Advocates & Solicitors Plaza Damas, N-3-1, Block N, 60, Jalan Sri Hartamas 1, Sri Hartamas, 50480 Kuala Lumpur For the Respondent: FC Puan Hani Aziza binti Ismail@Aziz FC Puan Mary Phoon Keat Mee Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. For the Proposed Intervener: Amni Humaira binti Rosman Messrs Shook Lin & Bok 20th Floor, Ambank Group Building, 55, Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur