Download - Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
1/11
TEMPORARY OCCUPATION LICENCE
(TOL)MOHAMED V KUNJI MOHIDIN [1966] 2 MLJ 24:
[1967] 1 mlj 96 fc
PRESENTED BYNURUL ATILIA MAT DERIS
ONG POH HONG
SAMUEL KIE CHANG EE
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
2/11
Facts of the case
Therespondent was a holder of atemporary occupation licence of asmall plot on a piece of land for a
house site.There were already some fruit tresson the land including 73 coconut
trees.In respect of the those trees, therespondent had also obtained a
licence to pluck coconuts from 34
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
3/11
In 1964, a temporary occupationlicence was issued in respect of the
same piece of land to the appellantfor the purpose only of rearingpoultry.
The appellant then cut down someof those coconut trees and therespondent claimed $2000as
damages for the losses suffered byhim.
In Session Court, judgment for thelaintiff res ondent of a sum
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
4/11
On appeal to High Court, Abdul Aziz Jheld that the App was liable to the Respfor damages in trespass and damageswere awarded for the loss of all trees sodestroyed by the appellant.
His Lordship was of the view that theResp had a valid licence to pluck thecoconuts from 34 trees while the Apphad only a licence conferred on him no
right at all over the fruit trees.
The App appealed to the Federal Courtagainst the award of damages in the
High Court in the sum of $2000 to the
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
5/11
ISSUES (HIGH COURT)
Several grounds of appeal wereurged by the appellant/defendant:
1) The action was not maintainable asthe plaintiff/respondent only owned a
temporary occupation licence.
2) There was no evidence that the 34coconut trees cut down by the
defendant/appellant were in fact thecoconut trees in respect of which the
plaintiff had a licence to pluck the
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
6/11
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
7/11
The Pfsright to possession can be provedon the 4 grounds.
1. Possession of valid licence to occupy the areafor the purpose of dwelling.
2. Valid licence to pluck the coconuts from 34 trees.
3. Had been plucking fruit from all the coconut
trees and other trees for a number of yearsprevious to that
4. Df had only a licence which conferred him noright at all over the fruit trees.
-Immaterial whether Pf was in lawful possession,trespass is established.
-No dispute on the facts of trespass, damages and
quantum-A eal was dismissed.
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
8/11
Federal Court Appeal
The Respondent (Pf) was not the owner of
the tree, the trees were not planted by him.
He was only a TOL license holder for theparticular land, in which one of the conditions
adhered to the licensing is that planting of
permanent crops are forbidden.
Thus: Respondent is not entitled fordamages for LOSS OF TREES.
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
9/11
But,
The respondent can claim for
damages for LOSS OF INCOME
resulting from the act of defendant
cutting down the trees.
Rule 40 (iii) of the Land Rules 1930 under
the heading of Temporary Occupation of State Land:
every such license shall expire not later
than the 31
st
day of December of the yearin res ect of which it is issued.
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
10/11
Calculation of Damages
Defendant cut the trees down on 23rdAug 1964, therefore R can claimfor loss of income for the period of 23rdAug to 31stDec 1964.
R earned RM 20 per month,
Total = RM 86
Thus, Court held that the amount of damages shall be reduced to RM86 from the previous RM 2000 awarded.
-
8/13/2019 Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin (Tol)
11/11
Conclusion
Both R and A are holder of TOL holder
But A committed trespass when he cut down thetrees without the license
R is entitled to claim for loss of income, not loss
of property- Less reference to NLC
1965
- Distinguish the right ofan owner and that of a
TOL license holder