Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(BIDANGKUASA RAYUAN)
RAYUAN SIVIL NO : D-02-2616-10/2011
ANTARA
PRUDENTDEALS SDN. BHD
(Company No: 428989-H)
PERAYU
RESPONDEN
DAN
YM TENGKU ABDUL HALIM IBNI
ALMARHUM SULTAN IBRAHIM
Plaintif
Dan
YM Tengku Abdul Halim Ibni
Almarhum Sultan Ibrahim
Defendan
Pencelah
Dan
Warisan Tiara (M) Sdn. Bhd.
CORAM:
MOHD. HISHAMUDIN YUNUS , HMR
ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN KHAIRUDDIN, HMR
MAH WENG KWAI, HMR
Brief Facts
1.4. On 30/11/99 some 11 years after the Mining Lease had been
granted to the respondent, Hassan granted a special Power of
Attorney (the 2nd PA) to one Mustapha bin Mohamed
(Mustapha) to act on behalf of the respondent in matters in
1.6. Following the February 2000 MOU, Mustapha entered into two
Agreements with the appellant on 10/4/00 for the extraction of
timber and mining on the said Land.
1.8. On 3/12/00 the State Director of Lands and Mines issued the
Mining Certificate for the said Land to the respondent.
1.9. At all material times the appellant paid for the cost of survey of
the said Land, prospecting tests, a sum of RM230,000.00 to
Mustapha as consideration for the two Agreements, premiums,
quit rents and deposit for the Mining Lease.
1.10. On 8/1/01 that is, before the timber licence could be issued by
the Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri to the respondent on 21/2/01,
3
1.11. Following the revocation of the 1st PA, the respondent entered
into an agreement with Warisan Tiara (M) Sdn Bhd to extract
the timber and to mine the said Land.
2.
2.2. Essentially, the appellant claimed that it had the right to fell and
extract the timber and to mine the said Land by virtue of the 2nd
3.
4.
After a full trial the learned High Court Judge held that the
appellant had failed to prove its case on a balance of probabilities
and dismissed the claim. The main finding in the learned Judges
Grounds of Judgment was that Hassan had acted in excess of his
powers when he granted the 2nd PA to Mustapha to deal with matters
5
in respect of the Mining Lease since the Mining Lease was not in
existence at the time of the 1st PA. Consequently the learned Judge
held that the two Agreements entered into between Mustapha and
the appellant were not binding on the respondent.
5.
The Appeal
Our Decision
Upon
reading
the Record
of Appeal
and the
written
Grounds of Decision
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Annamalai Abittiar
v Lassam
binti
11
In
Non-Metallic
Mineral
Products
Manufacturing
(i)
It
was
not
confined
to
only
the
(ii)
so
notwithstanding
that
the
Deed
of
(iii)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
8.
Conclusion
Dated this:
D. Kalai;
Messrs Kalai & Partners.
17