Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General: Locus Standi, Equal Protection & Land Acquisition
In Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding the compulsory acquisition of the Jin Long Si Temple. The appellants, devotees of the Temple, sought a declaration that the acquisition violated Article 12 of the Constitution, arguing unequal treatment compared to nearby religious institutions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of Article 12, and holding that the acquisition was based on valid planning considerations and optimization of land use. The court also addressed issues of locus standi and delay, finding in favor of the appellants on these points, but ultimately dismissing the appeal on the substantive constitutional issue.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The court found no violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal case regarding the acquisition of temple property, addressing locus standi, delay, and violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng Foong Ho | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Cheng Hock, Tay Yong Seng |
| Hue Guan Koon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Cheng Hock, Tay Yong Seng |
| Ang Beng Woon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Cheng Hock, Tay Yong Seng |
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Eric Chin, Janice Wong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tay Yong Seng | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eric Chin | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Janice Wong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellants are devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple.
- The temple property was compulsorily acquired pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act.
- The Gazette notification declared that the temple property was acquired for the construction of Circle Line Stage 3 & comprehensive redevelopment.
- The Trustees appealed against the acquisition of the temple property.
- The Singapore Land Authority stated that the acquisition of the site will allow better optimisation of land use.
- The temple property is located near the site of the new Bartley Mass Rapid Transit station.
- The temple property is adjacent to the Ramakrishna Mission and the site of the former Outram Institute.
5. Formal Citations
- Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General, CA 26/2008, [2009] SGCA 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Gazette notification (GN No 172/2003) declared acquisition of temple property for construction of Circle Line Stage 3 & comprehensive redevelopment. | |
| Singapore Land Authority replied to Mr R Ravindran regarding the acquisition of the temple. | |
| Trustees made a final appeal to the Prime Minister. | |
| Permanent Secretary for Law and the Permanent Secretary for National Development replied to the Trustees, rejecting the appeal. | |
| Appellants filed application for a declaratory order. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants had locus standi to institute the proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR 112
- Equal Protection of the Law
- Outcome: The court held that the acquisition of the temple property was not in violation of Art 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1980-1981] SLR 48
- [1998] 2 SLR 410
- [1980-1981] SLR 36
- [1990] SLR 4
- (1918) 247 US 350
- (1922) 260 US 441
- [1990] SLR 915
- Inordinate Delay
- Outcome: The court held that there had not been inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in instituting the present proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory order that the acquisition of the temple property violated Art 12 of the Constitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Land Acquisition Disputes
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng Foong Ho v AG | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 437 | Singapore | Cited as the decision of the trial judge which is the subject of the present appeal. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of locus standi required for an application under Order 15 rule 16 of the Rules of Court. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bebe bte Mohammad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 884 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the particulars in the land-register are conclusive. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v PP | Privy Council | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 48 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equality before the law requires equal treatment with other individuals in similar circumstances. |
| PP v Taw Cheng Kong | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 410 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle of reasonable classification of laws. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor, Singapore | Privy Council | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 36 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of the equal protection clause could not be established by proving the existence of inequalities due to inadvertence or inefficiency unless they were on a very substantial scale. |
| Howe Yoon Chong v Chief Assessor | Privy Council | Yes | [1990] SLR 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that absolute equality in the field of valuation for property tax purposes is not attainable. |
| Sunday Lake Iron Co v Township of Wakefield | Supreme Court | Yes | (1918) 247 US 350 | United States | Cited for the principle that the equal protection clause secures every person against intentional and arbitrary discrimination. |
| Sioux City Bridge Co v Dakota County | Supreme Court | Yes | (1922) 260 US 441 | United States | Cited for the principle that intentional systematic undervaluation by state officials contravenes the constitutional right of one taxed upon the full value of his property. |
| Raymond v Chicago Union Traction Co | Supreme Court | Yes | 207 US 20 | United States | Cited as precedent. |
| Hamilton v Adkins | Supreme Court of Alabama | Yes | (1948) 35 SR 2d Series 183 | United States | Cited for the principle that inequalities which result from the application of a reasonable administrative policy do not amount to deliberate and arbitrary discrimination. |
| PP v Ang Soon Huat | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 915 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an executive act may be unconstitutional if it amounts to intentional and arbitrary discrimination. |
| Syed Omar bin Abdul Rahman Taha Alsagoff v The Government of the State of Johore | Privy Council | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 49 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that an acquisition can be challenged for bad faith, notwithstanding s 5(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an acquisition can be challenged for bad faith, notwithstanding s 5(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 568 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an acquisition can be challenged for bad faith, notwithstanding s 5(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 r 16 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Order 53 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Article 12 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Article 15(1) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore | Singapore |
| Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 5(3) Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Locus Standi
- Equal Protection
- Land Acquisition
- Article 12
- Constitution
- Comprehensive Redevelopment
- MRT station
- Religious Institution
- Land Use Optimisation
15.2 Keywords
- locus standi
- equal protection
- land acquisition
- constitutional law
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Land Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Land Acquisition