(ii) Land Reference No. BA-15-107-07/2022 ("LR 107"): Enclosure 43, filed by Interveners, who are the registered proprietors of the scheduled land, PT 714 HSM 654 ("PT 714"). The Interveners in LR 107 are the sons of the Intervener in LR 106. [3] Through these applications, the Interveners are seeking leave from this Court to file a Supplementary Affidavit. [4] On 20.3.2024, the intervener was allowed to intervene in LR 106. It must be stated that at this juncture, the intervener merely sought leave to intervene in the land reference. Subsequently, on 26.3.2024, when the land reference came up for case management, the intervener merely sought to file his valuation report and rebuttal to the applicant’s and respondent’s valuation report. Both the applicant and the respondent objected to this request. Grounds for this application [5] The intervener submitted that the proposed Supplementary Affidavit by the intervener is intended to assist the procedure of this Court in the land reference, and that the proposed Supplementary Affidavit will provide documents relevant to the land reference. Analysis and Findings [6] This is an application by the intervener to file a Supplementary Affidavit. The application is based on Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. [7] Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 reads: “For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.” [8] The issue before this court is whether this court ought to allow the intervener’s application to file a Supplementary Affidavit when land reference proceedings are conducted pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The procedural and evidential rules applicable to land reference cases are specifically outlined in the Third Schedule of the Land Acquisition Act 1960. [9] In this regard, the Court of Appeal in Pengerang Farm Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Kota Tinggi [2017] MLJU 214 stated: "In this connect ion, it is important to appreciate that the court hearing an application under s. 37 of the LAA 1960 is in effect a land reference court specially constituted under the provisions of the LAA 1960. First, the court must apply the procedural and evidential rules which are set out in the Third Schedule. Second, the court is enjoined to apply the principles relating to the determination of compensation enumerated in the First Schedule. Third, where the object ion before the court relates to the amount of compensation, the court is required to appoint two assessors for the purpose of assisting the judge in determining the object ion and in arriving at a fair and reasonable amount of compensation: s. 40A of the LAA 1960. As such, the constitution of the land reference court is different from that of a civil court adjudicating on civil matters. " [Emphasis added] [10] The Federal Court in Amitabha Guha & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat [2021] 3 CLJ 1 held: “[50] Of course, assessors are not the decision-makers; they only act in an advisory capacity to the judge. As members of the land reference court under the LAA 1960, assessors sit with the judge during and after the hearing, and are required to give non-binding opinions in writing on quest ions of fact based on the evidence. In land reference proceedings, the provisions of the Third Schedule on Evidence and Procedure in Land Reference Cases shall apply to the proceedings: see s. 45(1A) of the LAA 1960. Pursuant thereto, the evidence to be considered by the assessors and the judge includes the applicant's valuer's report, the respondent's valuer's report, including oral evidence by the applicant's valuer and/or the respondent's valuer during cross-examination and re-examination, if any. The Government assessor and the private assessor hear and consider the evidence and arrive at an opinion on the facts, which is then presented to the judge in the form of a written opinion: see s. 40C of the LAA 1960. Even though the assessors are sources of information on matters within their own special skill or knowledge, they are not expert witnesses as their advice does not amount to evidence. More pertinently, the assessors and the judge are required to apply the Principles Relating To The Determination of Compensation under the First Schedule of the LAA 1960: see sub-s. 47(2) of the LAA 1960.” [Emphasis added] [11] Moreover, it must be stated that this application to file a Supplementary Affidavit was filed after the applicant’s written submissions had been filed. In this sense, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the intervener. This inordinate delay in filing this application before this court was however, not explained. [12] In relation to Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, this court agrees with the submission by learned counsel for the applicant that the inherent power of the courts ought to be used for procedural purposes as to not allow an injustice to occur. In this land reference, however, the Supplementary Affidavit sought to be introduced would be filed after submissions had been filed by the applicant, and thus giving the intervener an advantage or upper hand against the applicant. [13] In Motor Emporium, The v V Arumugam [1933] MLJ 276, the court stated: “The court had an inherent jurisdiction to do justice between the parties, and apply such principles as were necessary or desirable for attaining such object and for giving decisions which were in conformity with the requirements of the social conditions of the community where the las was administered.” [14] In this application, this court is of the considered view that if this application to file a Supplementary Affidavit be allowed, the applicant would be put at a disadvantage as the applicant had already filed the written submissions. Moreover, there was an inordinate delay to file this application which was not explained. [15] The intervener submitted that the filing of this Supplementary Affidavit would assist this court in the land reference proceedings before this court. The case before this court is a land reference case involving the Land Acquisition Act 1960. The land reference pertains to the award given by the land administrator. This court is of the view that the Supplementary Affidavit intended to be filed by the intervener will not assist the court. Furthermore, it is intended to be filed after the applicant's submissions have already been filed. [16] This court is also of the view that the inherent power of the court cannot be invoked to take away the substantive right given to a party. [See: Tan Beng Sooi v Penolong Kanan Pendaftar (United Merchant Finance Bhd, intervener) [1995] 2 MLJ 421 at 430]. Conclusion [17] For the aforementioned reasons, this court dismissed this application in Enclosure 44 with no order as to costs. Dated: 18 Disember 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam Counsel: For the Applicant: Ho Ai Ting, Preveena a/p Ravindra Kumar Tetuan Tetuan Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Advocates & Solicitors Aras 6, Menara 1 Dutamas Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur. general@lkkco.com.my +603 6208 5888 For the Respondent: Etty Eliany binti Tesno Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, Bangunan Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor. +603 5544 7183 For the Intervener: Muhammad Naim bin Abd Halim Tetuan Mohaji, Hazury & Ismail No. 53A, Tingkat 1, Jalan Melati 3/17, Bandar Malawati, 45000 Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan mhiksel@gmail.com +603 32811945