Federal Court reverses its decision in landmark land case

The Federal Court at Putrajaya today departed from its judgement nearly 10 years ago in the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit case, plugging a loophole in the law to thus allow landowners who lost their land through fraudulent means to redeem their right to the property.

In its landmark unanimous ruling, the five-man bench led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi held that land transferred by fraudulent means will no longer be legally accepted.

Others on the bench were Court of Appeal president Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and James Foong Cheng Yuen.

The court’s previous judgement in 2000 was made by former chief justice Eusoff Chin.

The decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit concerned the interpretation of the law as laid out in Section 340 of the National Land Code (NLC) 1965, resulting in cases where landowner could lose their lands even though they hold a valid title.

In this now-infamous case, Boonsom Boonyanit, a Thai national, owned some land in Penang. She eventually discovered that an impostor claiming to be her -- and with supporting identification documents as well as statutory declarations -- had declared that she had lost the original title and managed to obtain a replacement title from the land office.

The impostor subsequently sold the land to Adorna Properties, which bought it on good faith, and did not suspect that there was anything amiss in the transaction.

When Boonyanit sued for the return of the land at the Penang High Court, she was unsuccessful. She appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA), which decided in her favour.

However, Adorna Properties then made an appeal to the Federal Court, and won. In essence, Boonyanit -- who has since passed away -- lost her land without receiving a single sen for it.

Because it was a decision of the highest court in the land, it has to be followed by every lower court in the country.

This meant that the law could not protect landowners even if they were able to prove the title is theirs, as long as it could be proven that the purchaser bought it on good faith.

(news courtesy of theStar)