APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION ARGUMENTS

May I begin YAA, My Lords, My ladies?

Much obliged.

Good evening YAA, My Lords, My Ladies,

and all the members of the court. May it please
this Honourable Court. Here I shall continue to
the next issue after my learned senior counsel
has submitted it just now.

My name is Nur Izzati Syakirah Binti Zainal,

Junior counsel for the Appellants, and it is an
honor for me to appear before this Honourable
Court.

YAA, My Lords, My Ladies,

If it pleases this Honourable Court, I will
continue in submitting on the second issue for
the next 20 minutes and we shall reserve 5
minutes for the rebuttal.

YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, may I plead to

begin my submission? Much obliged, My
Lords.
..
The 2nd issue to arise is the Respondents are
illegal to go inside the land without the
Appellants’ permission and they cannot use
force against the Appellants if they refuse to
vacate the land.

Here I shall divide my submission into 2 parts.

The 1st part would be that the Respondents do
not have any right to use the force method
since the Appellant possesses the said land
area legally by regarding to
Section 7(2) of Specific Relief Act 1950

The 2nd part is, the Appellants are permitted

to stop the Respondents from going into the
land by regarding to Section 44(1)(a) of the
NLC 1965
1ST GROUND

YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, regarding to the

1st part of my submission, I will respectfully
submit that, the ground on our 1st issue is the
Respondents do not have any right to use
the force since the Appellant possesses the
said land area legally.

First and foremost, by referring to the Moot

Problem, page 2 para 8 line 4, the Appellants
have been forced to vacate the said land area
by the Respondents without being given
relevant times for the Appellants to prepare to
vacate their land. We would like to submit that
the Respondent does not have any right to
force the Appellant to vacate the land.

In Section 7(2) of the Specific Relief Act 1950

provides that if an immovable property has
been leased under an expired tenancy and the
occupier continues to occupy it, the person
entitled to possession shall not recover it from
the occupier without the Court's permission.
(paraphrase)

provides that if an immovable property has

been under the possession of a legal occupier
and the occupier continues to occupy it, the
person entitled to possession shall not recover
it from the occupier without the Court's
permission. (boleh ke buat ayat camni?)
JUNIOR COUNSEL
4204(A)
 *SME Aerospace Sdn Bhd v Steyr
Mannlicher (M) Sdn Bhd

HIGH COURT
In subsection (2) ‘occupier” means any person Judge: ROSNAINI SAUB
lawfully in occupation of the property or part
• The used of the word ‘shall’ in s
thereof at the termination of the tenancy.’ So, 7(2) of the Act imposes a
by referring to this context, our clients are the precondition of obtaining a court
order before the defendant can
legal occupier of the land where they continue recover possession of the
to occupy the land as TOL holders. property.

• obtain a court order before it can

recover possession of the properly
from the plaintiff is a mandatory
YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, this provision is one. 467-[E]
further strengthened by a Court judgment in the
• the plaintiff was in possession and
case of SME Aerospace Sdn Bhd v Steyr occupation of the property where
Mannlicher (M) Sdn Bhd, The Court held it was issued with a license to
manufacture deal and repair and
that it is mandatory for the Defendant to obtain
store arms in the property by the
a court order before reclaiming possession of Ministry of Internal Security.
the property from the Plaintiff. 462-[E]

Therefore, it is proven that the Respondent is

required to gain the Court’s approval to
recover their possession of the land from our
client.

By referring to the Moot problem page [3],

para 13 line 3,

COA held that the Respondents could use

force against the Appellants being squatters if
it is reasonably required.

Hence, YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, here I

beg to determine that our clients are TOL
holders which makes them the legal occupier
of the land. Thus, the Respondent shall not
enforce their right to recover the land against
the occupier without the approval of the Court.

2ND GROUND
*Section 44 (1)(a) of the NLC
YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, I beg permission
to continue for the next ground of my 44. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act
and of any other written law for the time
submission. Much obliged, My Lord. On this being in force, any person or body to
2nd ground, we submit that The Appellants are whom (under this Act or a previous land
law) land has been alienated, reserved land
permitted to stop the Respondents from going has been leased or a temporary occupation
into the land. licence (including a licence so styled
under a previous
land law) has been granted in respect of
1. The Appellants is a TOL holder and
any land, shall be entitled to—
they are entitled to the exclusive use and
enjoyment of the land as stated in Section (a) the exclusive use and enjoyment of so
much of the column of airspace above the
44(1)(a) of the surface of the land, and so much of the
land below that surface, as is reasonably
NLC where………./ This proves that the
necessary to the lawful use and enjoyment
Appellants are the possessor of the land, and of the land;
no one can enter the land without the
Appellants’ permission.

2. In the case of Julaika Bivi v Mydin,

the High Court judge held that a TOL holder
who is in possession of the land can sue any
trespasser. Therefore, since the Appellants are
the TOL holders who is in possession of the
land, we submit that there is no wrong for
In the current case, the title trespasser will lie
to the Respondents if they are going to enter Julaika Bivi v Mydin

the land without the Appellants' permission or High Court

consent. Thomson (Cheif Judge)

3. By referring to the moot problem, -An action for ejectment in tort will lie at
the instance of a holder of a TOL against
[2], 6 line 3, After 23 years, the Respondents a trespasser. 312 [F]-[G]
took over the land and demanded the
-TOL holder have the right to sue any
Appellants vacate. It is clearly unfair for our trespasser. 310 [C]-[D]
client as the alienation was not issued and the
-TOL gives the holder a right to exclude
requirement came too suddenly after 23 years. others. 311[F]

4. Along with the moot problem, [2], 8

line 1, The Respondents force the Appellants to
leave the property without keeping their
promises and according to [3], 13 line 3, in
the moot problem, the Respondents were
given permission to enter the land where the
Appellant stay using force by the Court of
Appeal.

5. Hence, we submit that our client had a

valid license on the land whereas the TOL. As
the holder of the TOL, the Appellant is entitled
to bring an action for trespass against any
trespasser including the landowner of the said
land.
CONCLUSION

YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, is there any

concern from this Honourable Court that I may
entertain before I conclude my submission?

YAA, My Lords My Ladies, if there are no

further inquiries from the bench, may I
conclude my submission? Much obliged, My
Lord.

Therefore, YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, here I

shall conclude that, based on these 2 grounds I
have heartfully submitted, I beg this
Honourable Court's wisdom and determination
to believe that our clients, the Appellants;

1. They are the legal occupiers so the

Respondent shall not enforce their right to
recover the land against the occupier without
the approval of the Court.

2. Plus. I beg to plead with this Honorable

Court that the Appellants are entitled to the
exclusive use and enjoyment of the land. So,
the Appellants are permitted to stop the
Respondents from going into the land without
permission.
 USEFUL TEMRS IN COURT

AGREE WITH COURT

• “Indeed” or “certainly”, Your Excellency / YAA, My Lord / My Lady”.

• Thank you for pointing that out, YAA, My Lords, My Ladies. To address that
concern, .........................................
•

DISAGREE WITH COURT

• “We understand your concern Your Excellency / YAA, My Lord / My Lady,

However, we submit that….”

BEFORE CONCLUSION

• YAA, My Lords, My Ladies, is there any concern from this Honourable Court that I
may entertain before I conclude my submission?
• YAA, My Lords My Ladies, if there are no further inquiries from the bench, may I
conclude my submission? Much obliged, My Lord.

REPEAT QUESTION

• “I beg your pardon Your Excellency / YAA, My Lord / My Lady, May Your
Excellency / YAA / Your Lordship / Your Ladyship rephrase your question?”.

COULD NOT ANSWER QUESTION

• My Lord, I beg your pardon, that I could not assist this Honourable Court on that
concern.

AFTER ANSWER QUESTION

• “Have I addressed your concern Your Excellency / YAA / My Lord / My Lady?”.

TIME EXTENT

• “I can see my time is up, my I be given an extension of time Your Excellency / YAA,
My Lord / My Lady?”.
GET COURT ATTENTION
• “Yang Amat Arif, If I may bring the court attention to….”

REBUTTAL
YAA, My Lord, My Ladies,
May this please the Honorable Court, the Appellants will now rebut the 3 points on behalf of
our clients, the Appellants.

First: The Respondent contended that the Appellants are not entitled and have no right in law
or in equity to compel the Respondents to compensate them and fulfil their promises.
However, our clients are TOL Holders and they have the right either in law or equity to
compel the Respondents as they truly have rights upon it. I would like to enlighten YAA, My
Lord, My Ladies the ground regarding our clients’ rights.

The Appellants have right in law and equity based on the validity of their TOL license.
Despite the Respondents keeps referring to our clients as squatters, they are legitimate TOL
holders, and the state authority on behalf of the Respondent has repeatedly approved their
license renewal from 1965 until 2015.

Therefore, YAA, My Lord, My Ladies, the Appellants are entitled and have the right either in
law or equity to compel the Respondents to compensate them and fulfil their promises to the
Appellants.

Second: For my second rebuttal, Your Excellencies / YAA / My Lords / My Ladies, The
Respondent has submitted that they cannot be compelled to compensate the Appellants
as they are squatters. Your Excellencies / YAA / My Lords / My Ladies, we on the behalf
of the Appellant would like to highlight again our clients’ status which is TOL holder and not
squatters. We believe it is unfair and beyond a sense of humanity for the Respondent to force
the Appellants to vacate without proper compensation. The Respondents has given fake
assumptions to our clients regarding their promises to sell them new low-budget houses at
very low prices. The Respondent also failed to give Appellants a transit house for every
family while waiting for these new low budget houses to be completed. Therefore, we would
like to beg the Honourable Court’s consideration to give our clients fair compensation so our
clients and their families could have a proper home to live.

And lastly: The Respondent argued that they can go in, turn the Appellants out and
even use force against the Appellants, however, our clients are the possessor of the land
according to Section 44(1)(a) of the NLC 1965. Hence, the Respondents are not permitted to
enter the land without the Appellant’s consent unless if they insist to enter the land, the
Respondent can be considered as a trespasser. Furthermore, based on Section 7(2) of the
Specific Relief Act 1950, the Respondent shall not enforce their right to recover it against the
Appellants who are the occupier of the land without the approval of the Court. Therefore, the
Respondents do not have any rights to use the force method since the appellants possess the
said land area legally.

Your Excellencies / YAA / My Lords / My Ladies, that shall conclude our rebuttal. Much

obliged and may it please this Honourable Court (bow)