GIN POH HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF PENANG & ORS

[2018] 2 MLRA 547

GIN POH HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF PENANG & ORS
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Raus Sharif CJ, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin PCA, Richard Malanjum CJSS, Hasan Lah, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ
[Suit No: BKA-1-12-2014(P)]
12 March 2018

JUDGMENT

Raus Sharif CJ:

Introduction

[1] The petitioner was granted leave by this court on 9 August 2016, pursuant to art 4(4) of the Federal Constitution, to bring this Petition against the respondents. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the Chief Minister of Penang (Incorporation) Enactment 2009 (Enactment 9) or alternatively ss 3, 4 and 5 of Enactment 9 is/are invalid and void as being a law which the State Legislature of the State of Penang has no power to make; and

(ii) a declaration that the Incorporation (State Legislatures Competency) Act 1962 (Act 380), or alternatively s 3 and item 5 of the First Schedule thereof, in so far as it allows the incorporation of the Office of the Chief Minister of Penang with perpetual succession and permits the corporation to engage in commercial activities is/are invalid and void as being a law which Parliament has no power to make.

Material Facts

[2] The petitioner was the registered owner of ten parcels of land in Balik Pulau, Mukim 6, South West District, Penang ("the lands").

[3] The lands were acquired by the Penang State Government (the 1st respondent) through the Director of Lands and Mines, Penang (the 3rd respondent) and the Land Administrator of the South West District of Penang (the 4th respondent). The lands were acquired for a public purpose under s 8 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ("LAA"), pursuant to a Declaration of Proposed Acquisition dated 27 August 2009 published in the Penang State Gazette.

[4] On 25 May 2010, the 4th respondent conducted an enquiry as required under s 12 of the LAA, and offered compensation in the sum of RM40,161,639.50 to the petitioner The petitioner accepted the said compensation under protest. On 27 October 2010, the 4th respondent took possession of the lands from the petitioner

Sign up to view full cases Login