Sayap Jaya Sdn. Bhd. v Sejati Tropika Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020)

This is an application by the defendant for a stay of execution following the plaintiff’s claim being allowed with costs and the defendant’s counter-claim being dismissed with costs.

The application was allowed with costs; consequently, this appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

Upon the completion of a full trial, this Court allowed the plaintiff’s claim and disallowed the defendant’s counterclaim. The subject matter in this cause of action is land held under the following titles:

No HS(D) 43230, PT4089, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor, 02/12/2025 12:46:17 BA-22NCvC-269-08/2020 Kand. 194 S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg

(ii) No HSD(D) 43231, PT4090, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor,

(iii) No HSD(D) 43232, PT4091, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor,

(iv) No HSD(D) 43233, PT4093, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor,

No HSD(D) 43234 PT 4095, Mukim Batu, Daerah Kuala Langat, Negeri Selangor.

This Court has ordered, among others, that the original titles held by the defendant be returned to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s power of attorney be revoked.

The defendant has filed an appeal and submitted a notice of application for a stay of execution of proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal at the Court of Appeal. Issue 6. Whether there are special circumstances justifying a stay of proceedings in this case. Decision of this Court 7. The legal stance concerning stay of execution proceedings is well-established in the decision of the Federal Court in Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd v Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ

S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg

In Merityield Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Kerjasama Perkembangan Tanah Tingkayu Sdn Bhd & Ors [2010] 4 MLRH 654, the Court held as follows: “[7] [a] I agree with counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ contention that the said Land, being landed property has special value and is a relevant consideration in the application of the special circumstances test, [b] In coming to this conclusion, I am guided by the following cases:

In Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 146 [1994] 3 MLJ 777 at p 792 where Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ (as he then was) delivering the Judgment of the Federal Court :- [SK22-217 of 2006] “…not forgetting the land is always deemed in law to have a special value and is in the nature of things..absolutely limited …”

(ii) In Tan Ah Chim & Sons Sdn Bhd v Ooi Bee Tat & Anor [1993] 14 CLJ 476 [1993] 3 MLJ 633 Edger Joseph Jr S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg SCJ (as he was then) sitting a High Court Judge held that :- “… land is always deemed to have a special value of loss which may not be adequately compensated by damages…”

(iii) In Khoo Ah Soon v Ooi Kai Seng (Properties) Sdn Bhd [1995] 13 CLJ 812 [1995] 3 MLJ 293 Shaik Daud JCA (as he was then) delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said at p 300:- “Land being a valuable and special commodity, once lost, may not adequately be compensated by damages.”

(iv) In Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v KJ Production Sdn Bhd [2000] 4 CLJ 482 [2000] 4 MLJ 652. Kamalanathan Ratnam Jr (as he was then) relying on the decisions of Edger Joseph Jr SCJ (as he then was) in Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat v Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd (supra) and Tan Ah Chim & Sons Sdn Bhd v Ooi Bee Tat & Anor (supra) and S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg [SK22-217 of 2006) agreeing with the defendant’s argument that special circumstances particular to that case is that since land has a special value it would render nugatory the decision of the Court of Appeal if a stay was refused, proceeded to grant a stay pending appeal by stating categorically at p 654:- “Therefore there is no doubt that the Federal Court has expressed its view that land has a special values of loss which may not be adequately compensated by damages. On this ground, I am convinced that the defendant’s application ought to be seriously considered by this Court. However, the plaintiff submitted that the question of land having a special value is a matter that ought to be considered only when the Court has to consider a case involving a sale and purchase agreement or when the Court has to consider the issue as to whether an award or specific performance or damages would suffice. S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg He further argued that the question of land having a special value ought not to be a factor when considering a statutory right of state in foreclosure proceedings. This is, in my view, an appropriate submission. That land has a special value, is a matter that ought to be considered in all matters including foreclosure proceedings.”

The plaintiff’s argument centred on the fact that the defendant’s interest was solely to develop the lands under the joint venture agreement, and that the defendant could be compensated monetarily in any case.

The plaintiff contended that it would be prejudicial to be deprived of the benefits of the litigation and the right to manage the lands in a manner advantageous to the plaintiff.

This Court concludes that, considering the subject matter pertains to land and in accordance with the principles outlined in the cases as mentioned above, the stay order shall be granted on the following grounds:

11.1 If the defendant succeeds in the appeal, it will be rendered futile, as the plaintiff, being the registered owner, may have sold the lands to a third party, thereby undermining the defendant’s primary aim of developing the S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg lands as outlined in the joint venture agreement.

11.2 The lands remain the primary subject of the dispute, and any actions taken by the plaintiff, such as alienating the lands or selling them to third parties, will undermine the fundamental purpose of the defendant’s appeal.

11.3 It will be challenging for the defendant to enforce its rights under the joint venture agreement if third parties are involved, even if the defendant wins the appeal;

11.4 The plaintiff in the current proceedings has already received a letter of intent to purchase the land from a prospective buyer. Additionally, by a letter dated 7-7-2025, the plaintiff informed the defendant that a sale and purchase agreement had been entered into regarding the land. Consequently, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant remove its caveat by or before 25-8-2025. This is a real attempt by the plaintiff to dissipate the land. S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg

All the aforementioned warrants justify the granting of a stay of execution order and the defendant’s application was allowed with costs. Dated: 2nd December 2025 (INDRA NEHRU SAVANDIAH) Judge High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Selangor Date of Decision: 7th October 2025 Counsels: For the Plaintiff : Ramesh Sivakumar a/l Ramaveloo, Goik Kenzin, Calvin Lim Sin Guan & Bhuvaneswari Krishnamurthy Messrs Goik, Ramesh & Loo For the Defendant : Jasmine Anne Raj Messrs K. Nadarajah & Partners S/N kcCCAU4ekkmAcPd9wUpeAg