logo
TNB ordered to pay RM547k in late interest to landowner

TNB ordered to pay RM547k in late interest to landowner

PUTRAJAYA: Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) has been ordered to pay RM547,105 in late payment interest to a company for delays in compensating it for land used in a transmission line project.
A three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng said the national utility giant must pay the sum to Lambang Kelana Sdn Bhd after finding that the company had been unfairly deprived of its money for over five years due to administrative delays.
Other members of the bench were Court of Appeal judges Datuk Azimah Omar and Datuk Wong Kian Kheong.
According to court documents, in 2007, TNB had prematurely entered Lambang Kelana's land without due compliance with wayleave procedures under Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act to install electrical infrastructure.
The section stipulates that utility companies must follow specific procedures before entering private land to install or build electrical infrastructure, including giving formal notice to landowners and paying full compensation for any disturbance or loss of use of the land.
Lambang Kelana was neither served the statutory notice nor paid proper compensation for the loss of the portion of land acquired as wayleave for TNB.
The dispute led to a protracted legal battle, and TNB only paid RM2.1 million in compensation in 2020. However, the payment did not include any interest for the long delay.
In 2021, the Negri Sembilan State Authority decided that Lambang Kelana should receive RM1,369,332.95 in late payment interest for the delay in compensation from October 2015 to December 2020.
However, TNB filed a judicial review to challenge the decision in the High Court and succeeded in getting it overturned.
Azimah, who delivered the unanimous decision in dismissing the lower court's ruling, said the trial judge had misinterpreted the law by adopting a narrow and literal reading of the relevant provisions.
"To deprive the appellant of its rightful late payment charges would certainly transgress upon the appellant's constitutional rights safeguarded under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution.
"Despite the delay caused by the Land Administrator, TNB was still unjustly enriched by being able to utilise and earn interest on the monies that were supposed to be paid to Lambang Kelana for the entire duration of the delay," she said.
The appellate court said any interpretation of the law that allows government authorities or licensees to delay compensation with impunity would be unjust.
"We are certain that no statute ever legislated within our nation would promote a statutory authority to delay justice with impunity at the expense of unjust losses incurred against innocent landowners.
"If that be the case, then TNB would stand to unjustly benefit by holding onto monies that should have been paid to landowners, courtesy of delays by the Land Administrator.
"In the meantime, the Land Administrator would not suffer a single sen for the entire duration of the delay. The only party to suffer losses would be the landowner.
"Such an interpretation would truly be absurd and unjust," the court added.
The court also did not make any order for costs.
Lambang Kelana was represented by lawyers Yeoh Cho Kheong and T. Subbbiah, while lawyer David Dinesh Mathew appeared for TNB.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia
Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

Borneo Post

time2 hours ago

  • Borneo Post

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

Quah leaves the Court of Appeal's decision on her constitutional challenge against parts of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya. — Malay Mail photo The Court of Appeal ruled that it is no longer a crime to post 'offensive' online remarks intended to 'annoy', declaring such provisions in Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 unconstitutional. The judges said the law gave no objective standard for what is offensive, warning it could criminalise truth and stifle free speech under the Federal Constitution. The decision only applies to ongoing and future cases, with activist Heidy Quah's legal challenge succeeding, while the government may still appeal to the Federal Court. PUTRAJAYA (Aug 19): The Court of Appeal today unanimously ruled that it is no longer a crime in Malaysia to make 'offensive' online comments with the intention to 'annoy', and struck down parts of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998's Section 233 that had criminalised 'offensive' and annoying online speech. Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng, chairing a three-judge panel, said the court found these words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 to be unconstitutional, as they go against the Federal Constitution's Article 10(2)(a). 'We find the impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 constituting an offence to be violative of Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 8. 'It is not a permissible restriction to freedom of speech under our Federal Constitution,' he said, before striking down or making these two words in Section 233 invalid. 'We declare this decision to have prospective effect, so as not to resurrect the past,' he added. The Court of Appeal's decision's prospective effect means it will only affect ongoing or future court cases involving the crime of 'offensive' online speech intended to 'annoy' under Section 233, and will not affect past cases where the court had decided on whether those charged are guilty or not of such crimes. In reading the broad grounds of his judgment, judge Lee pointed out that there may be some people who feel offended and annoyed even when what is spoken is the truth, and cautioned against making it a crime to speak the truth. 'A premium should be given to truth, and the fact that some truths may be unpalatable does not justify criminalising the messenger merely because some masses of the people do not like the message,' the judge said. Among other things, the judge said that there is no uniform standard in society on what is 'offensive', and what a person finds offensive may not be offensive to another person in a diverse society. The judge said Section 233 does not give any standards on what would be 'offensive' or what would be an 'intent to annoy', and said freedom of speech becomes illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary when all types of speech could potentially be 'offensive' if a single person feels it is offensive. The judge cautioned that this would result in every speech having to be 'sanitised' — whether it is true or not — to avoid committing a crime under Section 233. Without an objective standard on what is 'offensive', the judge said regulating online civil discourse would become a 'euphemism' for the authorities to police and censor undesirable speeches, which he said would result in a 'chilling effect' over the right to freedom of speech and expression which is protected under the Federal Constitution's Article 10(1)(a). The judge pointed out that if online remarks are found to be untrue, a person can still be charged under the CMA's Section 233(1) for making comments that are false with intent to abuse, threaten or harass another person. The two other judges on the panel today are Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah. When asked by reporters if the Malaysian government will be appealing today's decision, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin said he would be seeking instructions on whether to file an appeal at the Federal Court. Lawyers Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Surendra Ananth, New Sin Yew, and Nur Izni Syazwani represented activist Heidy Quah in her successful constitutional challenge today against the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233. Lawyer Kee Hui Yee held a watching brief for the Malaysian Bar, while lawyers Lim Wei Jiet and Nevyn Vinosh Venudran represented Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suara Rakyat Malaysia in assisting the Court of Appeal as amicus curiae. While the Court of Appeal's decision today has effectively removed the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from Section 233, there is now a newer version of Section 233 that uses the words 'grossly offensive'. — Malay Mail MORE TO COME Court of Appeal Heidy Quah lead Lee Swee Seng

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia
Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

Malay Mail

time2 hours ago

  • Malay Mail

Don't shoot the messenger: Appellate Court says ‘offensive' online remarks to ‘annoy' can't be a crime in Malaysia

The Court of Appeal ruled that it is no longer a crime to post 'offensive' online remarks intended to 'annoy', declaring such provisions in Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 unconstitutional. The judges said the law gave no objective standard for what is offensive, warning it could criminalise truth and stifle free speech under the Federal Constitution. The decision only applies to ongoing and future cases, with activist Heidy Quah's legal challenge succeeding, while the government may still appeal to the Federal Court. PUTRAJAYA, Aug 19 — The Court of Appeal today unanimously ruled that it is no longer a crime in Malaysia to make 'offensive' online comments with the intention to 'annoy', and struck down parts of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998's Section 233 that had criminalised 'offensive' and annoying online speech. Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng, chairing a three-judge panel, said the court found these words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 to be unconstitutional, as they go against the Federal Constitution's Article 10(2)(a). 'We find the impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 constituting an offence to be violative of Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 8. 'It is not a permissible restriction to freedom of speech under our Federal Constitution,' he said, before striking down or making these two words in Section 233 invalid. 'We declare this decision to have prospective effect, so as not to resurrect the past,' he added. The Court of Appeal's decision's prospective effect means it will only affect ongoing or future court cases involving the crime of 'offensive' online speech intended to 'annoy' under Section 233, and will not affect past cases where the court had decided on whether those charged are guilty or not of such crimes. In reading the broad grounds of his judgment, judge Lee pointed out that there may be some people who feel offended and annoyed even when what is spoken is the truth, and cautioned against making it a crime to speak the truth. 'A premium should be given to truth, and the fact that some truths may be unpalatable does not justify criminalising the messenger merely because some masses of the people do not like the message,' the judge said. Among other things, the judge said that there is no uniform standard in society on what is 'offensive', and what a person finds offensive may not be offensive to another person in a diverse society. The judge said Section 233 does not give any standards on what would be 'offensive' or what would be an 'intent to annoy', and said freedom of speech becomes illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary when all types of speech could potentially be 'offensive' if a single person feels it is offensive. The judge cautioned that this would result in every speech having to be 'sanitised' — whether it is true or not — to avoid committing a crime under Section 233. Without an objective standard on what is 'offensive', the judge said regulating online civil discourse would become a 'euphemism' for the authorities to police and censor undesirable speeches, which he said would result in a 'chilling effect' over the right to freedom of speech and expression which is protected under the Federal Constitution's Article 10(1)(a). The judge pointed out that if online remarks are found to be untrue, a person can still be charged under the CMA's Section 233(1) for making comments that are false with intent to abuse, threaten or harass another person. The two other judges on the panel today are Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah. When asked by reporters if the Malaysian government will be appealing today's decision, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin said he would be seeking instructions on whether to file an appeal at the Federal Court. Lawyers Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Surendra Ananth, New Sin Yew and Nur Izni Syazwani represented activist Heidy Quah in her successful constitutional challenge today against the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233. Lawyer Kee Hui Yee held a watching brief for the Malaysian Bar, while lawyers Lim Wei Jiet and Nevyn Vinosh Venudran represented Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suara Rakyat Malaysia in assisting the Court of Appeal as amicus curiae. While the Court of Appeal's decision today has effectively removed the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' from Section 233, there is now a newer version of Section 233 that uses the words 'grossly offensive'. MORE TO COME

Aid For Indian Community Channelled Through Many Agencies, Not Just MITRA
Aid For Indian Community Channelled Through Many Agencies, Not Just MITRA

Barnama

time2 hours ago

  • Barnama

Aid For Indian Community Channelled Through Many Agencies, Not Just MITRA

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 19 (Bernama) -- The allocations and assistance for the Indian community are channelled comprehensively through various ministries and not solely concentrated under the Malaysian Indian Community Transformation Unit (MITRA), said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He said there are other programmes with substantial allocations under various ministries that benefit the community in areas such as education, housing and business, in addition to the specific annual allocation of RM100 million for MITRA. For example, the Sumbangan Tunai Rahmah (STR) cash aid for the Indian community amounted to half a billion ringgit in 2022, while for 2025 it has reached RM1 billion, he said. Additionally, the Housing Credit Guarantee Scheme worth RM1.2 billion has been provided for the community.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store