Court: Supreme Court of Malaysia,. Judges: Salleh Abas LP, Seah, and Mohamad Azmi SCJJ.
1. Overview and Legal Significance
Ng Yee Fong is the foundational Malaysian authority defining the doctrine of acquiescence and its operation as a branch of estoppel by representation,. The judgment provides a clear distinction between acquiescence as an element of lachesand acquiescence as inferred assent that precludes a party from asserting their legal rights,.
2. Background and Facts
The dispute concerned two adjoining pieces of land in Kuala Lumpur (Lot 179 and Lot 126) which were originally part of a larger “parent lot” subdivided in 1955. The respondent was the registered owner of the vacant Lot 179. The appellants were the co-owners of Lot 126, which featured a dwelling house.
Due to a “haphazard” subdivision process, a septic tank and a fence belonging to the appellants’ property had been constructed on the respondent’s land,. The appellants had purchased Lot 126 in 1974. Crucially, their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) contained a clause stating the property was sold subject to the encumbrance of the boundary encroachment onto Lot 179,. The respondent sought a mandatory injunction to remove the encroaching structures.
3. Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the respondent was estopped by acquiescence from seeking the removal of the structures because he had allegedly “stood by” for years while the encroachment existed,.
4. Judicial Reasoning and Principles
The Supreme Court, through Mohamad Azmi SCJ, clarified the two legal definitions of acquiescence:
- Acquiescence as Laches: Occurs when a person refrains from seeking redress after being notified of a violation of their rights which they previously did not know about,.
- Acquiescence as Estoppel: Occurs when a right-holder, seeing another person about to commit an act infringing that right, “stands by” in a way that induces the other person to believe the right-holder assents to the act,. A person who so stands by cannot later complain,.
The Five Elements of Estoppel by Acquiescence: The Court cited the traditional requirements that must be present to raise this estoppel against a party (A):
- Mistake: The person committing the act (B) must be mistaken as to their legal rights.
- Expenditure/Act: B must expend money or act on the faith of that mistaken belief.
- Knowledge of Right: A must know of their own right.
- Knowledge of Mistake: A must know of B’s mistaken belief.
- Encouragement: A must encourage B’s act, either directly or by remaining silent while having a duty to speak.
5. Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction,. The Court found that no equity was raised against the respondent. The appellants failed the first element because they were not mistaken about their rights; they had actual notice of the encroachment from their own 1974 SPA and had accepted the risk of the respondent exercising his proprietary rights,. The respondent was not responsible for the encroachment and had not made any representation to the appellants to waive his rights.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
