A company that bought a RM17 million plot of land in Mukim Batu, Kuala Lumpur, 10 years ago, has won the right for a review of a Federal Court ruling made last year on the grounds that it suffered procedural injustice.
A five-member bench of the Federal Court chaired by Court of Appeal president Justice Abu Bakar Jais today unanimously allowed Setiakon Engineering Sdn Bhd’s review application under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.
Abu Bakar said the company had crossed the threshold required under the rule.
Other judges on the panel were Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim and Justices Zabariah Yusof, Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh and Lee Swee Seng.
The ruling today set aside last year’s 3-1 Federal Court majority decision in favour of Mak Yan Tai and her brother Mak Kum Phoi. A fresh panel will now rehear the appeal.
Lawyer Cyrus Das, representing Setiakon, argued that the company was denied the right to tender rebuttal evidence, as the issue of fraud was raised for the first time at the apex court.
Lawyer Winston PC Ng and John Foo assisted Das while Krishna Dallumah represented the siblings.
The dispute began when the 0.87ha plot was initially registered under the name of the sibling’s mother, Wong Soo, as security for a loan taken by Lim Moy.
In 2014, Lim applied to the High Court for a declaration that she was the rightful owner of the land and that it should be transferred back to her from Wong, as the loan had been fully repaid.
A default judgment was granted to Lim, resulting in the land being registered under her name.
She later sold the land to Paragon Capacity Sdn Bhd for RM15 million. Paragon then sold it to Setiakon for RM17 million in 2015.
The siblings succeeded in setting aside the default judgment in November 2017 after neither Lim nor her attorney appeared to contest the matter.
The siblings then filed a fresh suit against Lim, Paragon and Setiakon in 2019. Only Setiakon defended the claim.
The High Court ruled in favour of Setiakon as a bona fide subsequent purchaser under Section 340(3) of the National Land Code, but this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Setiakon then obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court, but the apex court dismissed the appeal, resulting in the review application.
