LAND LAW – TRUST – WHEN TIME AND TRUST RUN OUT – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISPUTES AND THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES

Illustrative Scenario

X and Y are siblings. In 1980, their father started a sundry shop business and used the earnings to purchase a piece of land, which was registered in their mother’s name for plantation purposes. X worked at the sundry shop for six years without receiving any salary. As a result, the mother transferred the property to X in 1990. Despite owning the land, X chose to share the plantation income equally with Y, as times were tough and he did not want to deprive his sibling of this income. X alone covered all the quit rent and other expenses related to the land. Both parents passed away in 2000 without leaving a will. In 2013, Y initiated legal action against X, seeking a declaration that X holds the land in trust for both siblings.

The core issue is whether Y can successfully claim that X holds the land on trust for both of them, meaning the land should not belong to X alone.

Legal Principles & Laws

Section 344 of the National Land Code (NLC): Mandates that any trust must be recorded in the memorial of registration to be recognized.
Three Certainties of Trust: For a trust to be legally valid, it must satisfy three certainties: certainty of words, certainty of subject, and certainty of object.
Trust and Land Title: If a land title does not explicitly state that a trust exists, with the trustee’s name mentioned, the registered owner on the title holds the land absolutely, without any obligation to another party not named on the title.
Doctrine of Laches: If there is an unreasonable delay in asserting a claim or interest over a property, the court may conclude that the doctrine of laches applies, thereby defeating the claim.

Application to the Scenario

In this scenario, there is no mention in the memorial of registration that X holds the land in trust for the siblings. Additionally, there is no written document or trust deed indicating the existence of a trust. Consequently, the court is likely to rule that X does not hold the land on behalf of the siblings. Moreover, the significant delay of over 10 years by Y in asserting his claim further strengthens the likelihood that the court will dismiss Y’s claim based on the doctrine of laches.

Reference Cases

Low Tin Yong @ Low Yong Lian v. Low Yong Thuan [2016] 3 MLJ 351
Alfred Templeton & Ors v. Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [1989] 2 MLJ 202; [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 219

Sorotan Terkini

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.