Case Review on Ngo Ong Chung & ORS v Pengarah Tanah (PDF)

3.0 case reviews 3.1 Case Review on Ngo Ong Chung & ORS v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak Darul Ridzuan Facts of the case In the case of Ngo Ong Chung & Ors v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak Darul Ridzuan, the plaintiffs applied to convert their freehold lands by subdividing them into multiple pl...

3.0 case reviews 3.1 Case Review on Ngo Ong Chung & ORS v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak Darul Ridzuan Facts of the case In the case of Ngo Ong Chung & Ors v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Perak Darul Ridzuan, the plaintiffs applied to convert their freehold lands by subdividing them into multiple plots for development. But on approval, the defendant placed a condition that the tenure of the land would be that of leasehold for 99 years instead of freehold. The plaintiffs disputed that decision, claiming that it was in contravention of the provisions of the National Land Code (NLC) as well as that their rights as vested owners of property were infringed upon by no compensation being made as to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution which protects rights to property from being deprived without lawful authority. The plaintiffs claimed that as the change in tenure was not based on any legal authority, it was null and void and this was the declaration they sought. Decision of the Court The court held that the reduction of land tenure from freehold to leasehold was ultra vires the NLC and therefore null and void. The action taken by the defendant lacked any legal basis and contravened Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. The court noted that the administrative act of altering property rights must be backed by law; otherwise, it cannot deprive individuals of their property. The ruling reinforced that any administrative act deemed ultra vires is invalid from its inception and has no legal effect. The court also referenced prior cases where similar issues were ruled upon, highlighting the government's lack of authority to enforce such changes to land tenure. The court declared that the conversion of land tenure from freehold to leasehold was ultra vires the NLC, thus, the step was null and void. The defendant's response was not legal and it contradicted Article 13(1) in the Federal Constitution, which says that people cannot be isolated from their property except in accordance with law. It was pointed out by the court that the act of property right alteration through administration is only valid when there is a law that will uphold the act. Therefore, if there is no such law in existence, it cannot deprive the property of the individuals. The verdict also supported the observation that any administrative act declared as ultra vires is legally ineffective and invalid from the start. The court used to refer to past cases where such matters got resolved, especially where the government was found to be acting beyond its rights with respect to the land tenure changes. Application of Ultra Vires in this case The ultra vires principle is implemented when a public authority exceeds its granted powers under the law. Thus, it was due to this that the High Court confirmed the plaintiff's allegations about the leasehold condition that they were ultra vires to the National Land Code. The court stated clearly that any administrative act or order that is ultra vires is a nullity and does not have any legal effect. The goal of this principle is to protect the rights of individuals from the harmful actions of public authorities. The court has made referrals to the above cases in the course of Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd and Ipoh Garden Bhd. where the government with the similar conditions imposed fell ultra vires as Ordered,. Such a state of affairs was created. It was thus the court's opinion that the body should work within the bounds of its authority. The High Court clarified, with reference to Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution, that property rights could not be usurped by mere administrative acts without a legal basis. The judge's verdict assured that the plaintiffs kept their rights to their property untouched, thereby establishing a precedent that stresses the importance of public authorities being limited in their powers so as not to interfere with individuals' rights.