Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v yang Di-Pertua Negeri Melaka (MA-25-2-07/2025)

YANG DI-PERTUA NEGERI MELAKA

2.

LEMBAGA RAYUAN GERAN TANAH …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN

This is an application pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 3(3) therein, the application for leave was served upon the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AG’s Chambers”).

Consequently, vide letter dated 17.12.2025, the AG’s Chambers expressed their intention to oppose the said application, primarily, amongst others, on the ground that the said application was filed beyond the time limit as prescribed under Order 53 Rule 3(6).

The facts revolve around the grant of a state lease by the Ruler in Council over state land described as “Hakmilik Lots 59 PN1350, Mukim Pulau Sebang, Daerah Alor Gajah, Melaka” (“the said Lease”) with an acreage of approximately 3.14 hectares, in favour of the Applicant since 1972. It had a validity period of 63 years. The said lease was due to expire on 22.11.2024.

In February 2022, the Applicant initiated efforts to apply to the relevant authorities for an extension of the said Lease.

After several correspondences between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent, the application for “kelulusan dasar” for an extension was rejected: - i. By the state authority vide the 2nd Respondent’s letter dated 17.03.2023; and ii. Following an appeal by the Applicant by way of a letter dated 07.07.2023, rejected again by the State Authority vide the 2nd Respondent’s letter dated 16.01.2024.

For the record, the rejection letter dated 16.01.2024 (“the 16.01.2024 Rejection”) was received by the Applicant on 05.02.2024 (Enclosure 3, page 54).

7.

Thereafter, a judicial review application was filed vide Originating Summons No.MA-25-10-08/2024 in the Malacca High Court on 14.08.2024 (“the 1st JR”). However, the Applicant withdrew the 1st JR with liberty to file afresh on the date of hearing of 18.07.2025.

This current judicial review application was filed on 25.07.2025. What was glaring was the delay in filing the said application, and the Applicant tried to overcome this by inserting a prayer for an extension of the time period prescribed for the filing of an application of this nature.

For all intents and purposes, the existence of delay cannot be disputed.

The AG’s Chambers is opposing the application for leave pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3 in this current action. It was conveyed by way of a letter dated 09.01.2026, where the AG’s Chambers indicated that they would not be filing an affidavit in reply and instead, will proceed to file submissions.

The chronology of events as stated by the parties is not disputed. For ease of reference, this was the table that was prepared by the AG’s Chambers: -

Upon a scrutiny of the cause papers, the MAIN issue to be decided at this stage is whether there are good reasons to allow for an extension of time to file in a judicial review application beyond the time period as prescribed under Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012.

The other issue to be decided is at to the determination of the impugned decision.

As per the Originating Summons, the date of the impugned decision is based on the 16.01.2024 Rejection which was received by the Applicant on 05.02.2024. i. A period of 3 months thereon would mean that the last date for the Applicant to file in a judicial review application would have been on 05.05.2024. ii. The 1st JR was filed on 14.08.2024, but subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant on 18.07.2025. iii. This application was filed on 25.07.2025.

On the second issue, the Applicant had tried to raise another date or point of when the cause of action accrued through another date of 11.07.2024. The said date was the date of a letter sent by the 2nd Respondent to the Applicant explaining that the application to extend the lease was rejected at the discretion of the 1st Respondent. For reasons stated below, this Court is not in agreement with the Applicant on this point from the outset.

The reasons for the delay as explained in Affidavit in Support of the Applicant in this case (Enclosure 3), can be summarised as follows: - i. The Applicant was not aware that it could avail itself to a remedy by way of a judicial review application; ii. The Applicant is a religious body with little or no knowledge of the laws applicable; iii. That an earlier application was filed vide the 1st JR on the same subject matter against Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Alor Gajah but was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on 18.07.2025 based on the Applicant’s own miscomprehension of the proper parties to be made as respondents. iv. The Applicant was waiting for reasons of the rejection by the Respondents; v. The Applicant was looking for pro-bono representation and was not successful until its current solicitors came on board; vi. And finally, that the Applicant should not be prejudiced as any delay was not intentional and there were bona fide mistakes on the part of the Applicant.

On the part of the AG’s Chambers, it was contended that: - i. the Applicant had not identified the impugned decision for subject of judicial review; ii. that the Applicant had not provided any reasons to justify an extension of time under Order 53 Rule 3(7) of the Rules of Court 2012. Analysis The subject of the judicial review

It is clear from the Originating Summons and the Statement pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012 that the Applicant was challenging the decision from the 16.01.2024 Rejection.

This Court agrees with the submissions of the Learned Federal Counsel in that the alternative date that the Applicant had tried to slip in of 11.07.2024, being the date of the letter from the 2nd Respondent to the Applicant (Enclosure 3, page 60) was not pleaded by the Applicant. It was not stated in prayers for relief in the Statement dated 25.07.2025 (Enclosure 2). Extension of time to obtain leave

In Tan Bun Teet v Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Pahang & Ors [2026] 3 MLJ 570, on the issue of extension of time, the Court of Appeal opined:- [54] We find that the facts of this case, as enumerated, support our conclusion that the JR application has not been filed promptly. This means that the court did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter right from the beginning (see: Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2016] 1 MLJ 544). Should extension of time be granted [55] Pursuant to O 53 r 3(7) of the ROC 2012, the court is empowered to extend time for the appellant to file the JR application, provided that there is a good reason for granting the extension. For ease of reference O 53 r 3(7) of the ROC 2012 reads as follows: The Court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in rule 3(6) if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so.

Based on the above, this Court is of the considered view that there has been delay in the filing of this action. The impugned decision was the 16.01.2024 Rejection, received on 05.02.2024. Therefore, the last date to file in a judicial review application was 05.05.2024.

Whilst this Court may have the discretion to allow an extension of time, the Applicant has not put forth any good reasons for doing so.

Grounds (i) to (iv) as stated above are based on knowledge of the law. At all material times, the Applicant was represented by legal counsel. In this respect, the reasons forwarded are untenable. Grounds (i) to (iv) • The Applicant was not aware that it could avail itself to a remedy by way of a judicial review application; • The Applicant is a religious body with little or no knowledge of the laws applicable; • That an earlier application was filed vide the 1st JR on the same subject matter against Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Alor Gajah but was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on 18.07.2025 based on the Applicant’s own miscomprehension of the proper parties to be made as respondents. • The Applicant was waiting for reasons of the rejection by the Respondents;

It is trite that the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law is no excuse) is applicable in Malaysia. This Court is unable to agree or to give any weight to a contention to even suggest that a religious body be granted any indulgence on its purported lack of knowledge of the law or it did not know what kind of remedies are available for matters of this nature.

As for the withdrawal of the 1st JR, it was contended on behalf of the AG’s Chambers that it was withdrawn as the Applicant had named the wrong party as respondents.

A judicial review application must be made against the party who delivered or gave the impugned decision (as held by the Federal Court in Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 307).

Hence, by the Applicant's own admission, it had filed the earlier application in the 1st JR by mistake (by not naming the correct party) and withdrew the same on 18.07.2025. In my mind, that cannot form part of the reasons in justifying an extension of time.

As for the contention that the Applicant was waiting for the grounds of decision for the 16.01.2024 Rejection to facilitate its alternative argument of the decision being the letter dated 11.07.2024 of the 2nd Respondent, it is this Court’s considered view that the challenge ought to have been made upon the decision being communicated to the Applicant. There is no mandatory requirement to procure the reasons behind the decision, notwithstanding that it could assist the Applicant in its application.

The conjunction ‘or’ coupled with the word ‘promptly’ within Order 53 Rule 3(6) clearly emphasises the need to file an application within 3 months from the moment either a decision is delivered or when the grounds of application first arise. The decision was communicated on 05.02.2024.

In any event, for reasons stated above, the Applicant has clearly made out its case based on the 16.01.2024 Rejection.

As such, even this reason must fail. Grounds (v) and (vi) • The Applicant was looking for pro-bono representation and was not successful until its current solicitors came on board; • The Applicant should not be prejudiced as any delay was not intentional and there were bona fide mistakes on the part of the Applicant.

Apart from having mentioned the reasons above in its Affidavit in Support in enclosure 3, the Applicant had not produced any evidence therein to show its efforts in trying to obtain legal representation on a pro-bono basis expeditiously. In any event, it was finally represented by not one, but 2 sets of solicitors at different points in time.

Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012 clearly provides for prescribed time frame of 3 months for an application of this nature, unless the Applicant provides good reasons to justify an extension.

There are numerous decided cases that stressed the importance of adhering to the said strict time period (Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zainal & Ors v Lembaga Pengarah Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad & Ors [2023] 6 MLJ 776, Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861). Hence, compliance is fundamental in order for this Court to be even seized with any jurisdiction to hear the application.

In Samsiah bt Leman v Ketua Polis Negara & Ors [2016] 7 MLJ 149, Collin Sequerah JC (as His Lorship then was) explained succinctly on the need and rationale for an application to be made promptly. At page 158: -

The Applicant has not provided any good reason for this Court to exercise its discretion. The days that had elapsed from the 16.01.2024 Rejection, received on 05.02.2024 to the date of filing of this application on 25.07.2025, is 537 days, a delay of approximately 1 year 2 months and 21 days from 05.05.2024, the expiry of the prescribed time period of 3 months from the date of decision.

As such, given that the application was filed out of time and that the reasons given for delay are not reasonable, coupled with the strict nature of Order 53 and the mandatory compliance of \the requirements therein, the said application for leave is dismissed with costs.

Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to allocatur. Dated 3rd July 2026 ISA AZIZ IBRAHIM JUDICIAL COMMISIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MALACCA For the Plaintiff : Reuben Ong Shen Myn M/s Kevin & Co. (Kuala Lumpur) For the Defendant : Puan Maryam Sakinah Binti Mohd Nor