Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Issue 2: Whether the Court

can make selection on


behalf of Daniel?

Issue 2: Whether the Court can make selection


on behalf of Daniel?

Aishah Binti Mohd Saman & 3


Ors. v. Kalsom bt Haji Mohamad
Nor [2000] 1 AMR 607

Aishah Binti Mohd Saman & 3 Ors. v.


Kalsom bt Haji Mohamad Nor [2000]
1
AMR
607
The plaintiffs and the defendants were co-proprietors of
a piece of undivided land in Penang.
The plaintiffs own 5/6th share, the defendants own 1/6th
share .
In March 1993, the plaintiffs entered into an jointventure agreement with a Syarikat Veins Wood Sdn.
Their objective was to develop the entire and into a
mixed housing project.
They wanted the defendant to go along with their plan,
but the defendant refused to sign agreement.

Aishah Binti Mohd Saman & 3 Ors. v.


Kalsom bt Haji Mohamad Nor [2000]
1
AMR
607
Later, the plaintiffs asked their solicitor to file an
application in court to have the land subdivided.
However, the defendants again refused to sign the
necessary documents.
Then, the plaintiff applied for an order of the court

In order to let the defendant choose one of the two corner lots.
if the defendant refused, the plaintiffs want the court to
choose for the defendant.

The defendant opposed the application.

Aishah Binti Mohd Saman & 3 Ors. v.


Kalsom bt Haji Mohamad Nor [2000]
1
AMR 607
One of the issues raised in this case was whether the court
should allow the plaintiffs application.
The judge said:

The plaintiffs did not sell the land but merely offered it to be developed.
Without the defendants consent, the plaintiff were not empowered to
allow the developer to develop the land, because the plaintiffs were not
exclusive owners of the land.
The plaintiffs act of giving an ultimatum to the defendant to choose
either one of the two corner lots was high-handed.

The High Court held that it would be unfair for the High Court to
choose the lot on behalf of the defendant

Issue: Whether the Court can make


selection on behalf of Daniel?
In the instant case, the case is similar with Aishahs
case.
Hence, the court cannot make selection on behalf of
Daniel.

Вам также может понравиться