The Court of Appeal has dismissed 14 appeals against a High Court decision that granted West Coast Expressway Sdn Bhd (WCE) more time to object to an award of nearly RM50 million in compensation to beneficial landowners affected by a highway project.
A three-member bench chaired by Justice Lim Chong Fong held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion under Sections 35 and 38 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA) in allowing the extension.
“There was no appealable error that warranted judicial intervention,” said Lim, who sat with Justices Wong Kian Kheong and Alwi Abdul Wahab.
WCE’s objection to the compensation awarded by Selangor land authorities is scheduled to be heard by the High Court in Shah Alam on Sept 18.
The dispute stems from the acquisition of a 2.09ha portion of Lot 10478 in Mukim Klang, part of the land earmarked for the RM6 billion West Coast Expressway – a 233km route linking Banting in Selangor to Changkat Jering in Perak.
In May 2021, WCE, the highway concessionaire and ultimate paymaster for the acquisition, opted to withdraw from the initial acquisition and instead acquire a smaller 1.52ha portion.
The decision was driven by escalating project costs and a redesign of the highway alignment to reduce the required reserve and minimise structural impact.
This triggered fresh compensation proceedings under Section 35 of the LAA.
On Feb 7, 2022, 15 beneficial owners of 15 plots were awarded a total of RM49,935,546.50 in compensation for the withdrawal.
Of that sum, RM47,889,148.00 was attributed to business disruption costs over a 41-month period – despite the affected plots being classified as agricultural land.
WCE only received formal notification and a copy of the award (Form LC) in September 2022, seven months after the award was issued.
On Dec 8, 2022, the company applied for an extension of time under Section 38(4) of the LAA to file Form N and object to both the legality and quantum of the award.
On Dec 21 the following year, the High Court in Shah Alam allowed WCE’s application, finding that the delay was caused by the state authorities’ late service of Form LC — a fact expressly conceded by the authorities themselves.
This, the court held, constituted “special circumstances” warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in WCE’s favour.
The High Court also noted that WCE had acted promptly upon receiving the award and that no prejudice would be caused to the landowners as the application merely sought to enable substantive objections to be ventilated in land reference proceedings.
Lawyers Steven Thiru, David Ng and Ananthan Moorthi represented WCE, while G Thangadurai and Ong Siew Min appeared for the landowners.
