ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO KA-22NCVC-04–01/2017HIGH COURT (ALOR SETAR)
YA Dato’ Haji Ghazali bin Haji Cha
10 September 2020
CC Chang (Sharon with him) (Syarikat Ng & Anuar) for the plaintiff.
Alvin John (Wong Chin Eng and Nadia Falisha with him) (Alvin John & Partners) for the defendant.
This is a case where the Plaintiff, Dusunku Sdn Bhd, took an action against the Defendant, Tenaga Nasional Sdn Bhd (“TNB”). This case is interesting as this action is taken by a private incorporation against TNB. In most cases, TNB would be the one suing individuals or private entities. This case also discusses the legal principle of wayleave.
A wayleave essentially means that a landowner can choose to give a limited right to an outsider to use or walk through his land, in return for a payment.
The brief facts are that TNB had applied for a wayleave on the Plaintiff’s land to the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Kedah (“MMK”). The Plaintiff, the landowner, was not satisfied and objected to the application for wayleave.The Land Administrator, decided in favour of the Plaintiff TNB was ordered to pay the Plaintiff compensation of RM188,672.40. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the Plaintiff appealed to MMK who later decided to increase the compensation sum by RM399.312.
The reason that this High Court suit arose was because TNB had failed to settle this increased compensation sum.
The High Court, in this case decided in favour of the Plaintiff and held that:
(a) the decision by MMK is binding and enforceable;
(b) TNB breached its obligation to pay the compensation sum to the Plaintiff; and
(c) NB could not challenge the Plaintiff’s claim by way of a collateral attack. TNB ought to have challenged the claim by way of a judicial review of MMK’s decision.
What this means is that when a wayleave is granted on any land, the party applying for wayleave has a statutory obligation to pay the compensation sum ordered to the landowner.
Published on 11 May 2022