Press Statement by Karpal Singh in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, 23^rd January 2010:

S340(2) of the National Land Code - review all cases affected by earlier decision

The landmark decision of the Federal Court in Tan Ying Hong v Tan Siang San & 2 others, in which the Court ruled that transfers of property by fraudulent or forged documents or misrepresentation, were no longer legally valid under section 340(2) of the National Land Code, has far reaching implications and consequences to land owners, apart from Boonsom Boonyanit and others who have lost their land in like circumstances, in the wake of the Federal Court decision delivered on 21^st January, 2010 overruling Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd which had acquired Boonsom Boonyanit’s land.

With this development, the Federal Court should in the interests of justice, pursuant to Regulation 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court, 1995 [For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as way be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court], review all decisions affected by the ruling. In fact, all landowners who lost their property by fraudulent or forged documents or by misrepresentation should now apply for review of the decisions given in their cases.

In particular, justice must be done to Boonsom Boonyanit who lost her property as a result of the ruling of the Federal Court in her appeal on 13^th December, 2000.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge and belief, Boonsom Boonyanit had applied for review of the Federal Court decision under Regulation 137, but the application for review was rejected on the ground that there was delay in the filing of same.

Regulation 137 does not bar subsequent reviews- Therefore, Boonsom Boonyanit still has recourse to justice which should not be denied her.

The decision of the Federal Court by the then Chief Justice, Mohd Eusoff Chin, no longer prevails. The decision of the Federal Court handed down by the present Chief Justice, Tun Zaki Tun Azmi, has clearly ordained that the earlier decision of the Federal Court was a nullity. In matters of nullities, delay is no obstacle for any application. In law, a null and void decision does not, and cannot, exist.

In my view, Boonsom Boonyanit is still the lawful and legal owner of her land and, therefore, Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. is obliged to return to her landed property, even if the land has been developed. Perhaps, Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd should negotiate with her in relation to damages for the loss she has suffered as a result of the null and void decision handed down by the Federal Court, the highest Court in the land, on 13^th December, 2000.

In the meanwhile, I call upon all those who have suffered loss as a result of the 2000 decision of the Federal Court to apply for review to which they are legally entitled, even if there has been a delay. The delay stands explained as a result of the 2000 decision of the Federal Court which was binding on all Courts in the country except the Federal Court itself which can overrule its own previous decision.

* Karpal Singh, DAP National Chairman & MP for Bukit Gelugor