Citation: [2019] 1 MLRA 255 Court: Federal Court, Putrajaya Judges: Ramly Ali, Azahar Mohamed, Rohana Yusuf, Mohd Zawawi Salleh FCJJ, and Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JCA Date of Judgment: 31 October 2018
1. Brief Background Facts
The respondent (Bukit Lenang Development) purchased land in Johor Bahru in 1996 for development, but the project was stalled due to the presence of squatters on the site. The appellant (Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB)), a public utility provider, supplied electricity to these squatters.
In 2002, the respondent demanded that TNB cease the supply and remove all electrical structures from the land. In 2003, the High Court ordered the squatters to surrender vacant possession (Squatter Judgment), though the execution of this order was stayed pending the squatters’ appeal. The respondent informed TNB of this judgment in 2004, but TNB continued to supply electricity. The respondent subsequently sued TNB for trespass. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found TNB liable, leading to this appeal to the Federal Court.
2. Legal Issues
The Federal Court granted leave for two main questions of law:
- Question 1: Is an action in trespass maintainable in law when the period of the alleged trespass occurred while a stay order was in force regarding the subject land?
- Question 2: Is TNB liable for trespass for continuing to supply electricity to occupants pursuant to the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA 1990) after a determination that those occupants are in unlawful occupation?
3. Court’s Holding and Reasoning
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and answered both questions in the affirmative.
A. Statutory Duty vs. Property Rights (Question 2) TNB argued that Section 24(1) of the ESA 1990 creates a mandatory obligation to supply electricity to any “owner or occupier” on request. The Court rejected this, holding that “occupier” does not include squatters occupying land without the registered owner’s consent.
The Court reasoned that interpreting the ESA 1990 to allow TNB to enter land without the owner’s consent would derogate from Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which protects fundamental property rights. Furthermore, under the principle of construction in bonam partem (in good faith), statutory benefits or duties are presumed to operate only when the underlying acts are performed in a lawful manner. TNB was obligated to discontinue the supply once it was informed that the occupants had no legal right to the land.
B. Effect of a Stay Order (Question 1) TNB contended it could not be liable for trespass during the period the Squatter Judgment was stayed. The Court held that a stay of execution only prevents the physical eviction of occupants pending appeal; it does not alter their status as unlawful squatters. The High Court’s determination that the occupation was wrongful remained in effect despite the stay. Consequently, TNB’s continued presence on the land to provide services to illegal occupants constituted an actionable trespass.
4. Conclusion
The Federal Court concluded that TNB does not have a statutory “right to encroach” on private land to supply electricity to squatters without the owner’s consent. A utility provider must act lawfully and cannot use a stay order as a shield to continue a trespass once it has clear notice of the occupants’ illegal status.
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.
