Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Lebbey SDN BHD

The document discusses a land dispute case between Lebbeys Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff/Pf) and Chong Wooi Leong & Anor (the defendants/Df). The Pf is the registered owner of a piece of land that was previously owned by the Selangor State Authority. Several families had built houses and occupied the land for many years. While most accepted the Pf's settlement offers, the Df refused to vacate. The court held that the Pf was entitled to possession as the registered owner, but that the Df may have equitable rights to remain given the State Authority's long acquiescence to their occupation.

Uploaded by

iamsyar_1
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Lebbey SDN BHD

The document discusses a land dispute case between Lebbeys Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff/Pf) and Chong Wooi Leong & Anor (the defendants/Df). The Pf is the registered owner of a piece of land that was previously owned by the Selangor State Authority. Several families had built houses and occupied the land for many years. While most accepted the Pf's settlement offers, the Df refused to vacate. The court held that the Pf was entitled to possession as the registered owner, but that the Df may have equitable rights to remain given the State Authority's long acquiescence to their occupation.

Uploaded by

iamsyar_1
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

LEBBEY SDN BHD V CHONG WOOI LEONG & ANOR They have the right of equity to be compensated as FACT

CT OF THE CASE: Pf is a registered proprietor of land which previously owned by the Selangor State Authority. At the time of alienation, there are many houses were built on the land. The land was occupied by many people. Pf negotiated with these occupiers and offered three schemes of settlement. Most of the squatter families have accepted the offer. However, some of the remaining occupiers refused to vacate the land. Pf commenced civil suit. they possessed the land previously. State authority have full knowledge there were people in occupation on the land. Although df entered the land since 1981 without consent or license, they had peaceful enjoyment and occupation on the land without any interferences of the state authority. Effect of the occupation, df had access to piped water, electricity and surau. After a fire, the district officer allowed df to rebulit their houses there. During election, the politician promised to give them TOL and committee of resident had applied for TOL. So, the equitable estoppel arosed. Defendants argument:

Issues: Whether there was implied consent or acquisance of State Authority to dfs occupation on the land. (Section 2 of NLC 1965) Whether df acquired any equitable rights to remain on the land. (Section 48, 341 & 425 (1) of NLC 1965) Whether pf took the land subject to dfs equity. (Equity Must come with clean hand) Whether application of TOL made by df was valid. ( Mere submission of an application could never amunt to consent by the State Authority.)

Held: The Pf is prima facie entitled to the possession Df is punished under Section 425 of NLC 1965

of the land as he is the registerd owner of the land.

You might also like