Harun v Abdul Samad: Striking Out Claim, Limitation Act & Land Title Dispute

In Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and Syed Abdulkader bin Syed Ali v Abdul Samad bin O K Mohamed Haniffa, O K Mohamed Haniffa bin Kader Mohideen, and Haniffa Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against the assistant registrar's decision to strike out their claim. The plaintiffs, as trustees of the Aljunied Trust, sought rectification of the land register for a property, alleging fraudulent conveyances. The court found the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, barred by the defence of laches, and failed to establish fraud under the Land Titles Act to challenge the first defendant's registered title.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out the plaintiffs' claim to a property due to limitation, laches, and failure to prove fraud under the Land Titles Act.

1.7 Decision Date

5 October 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Haniffa Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Dismissed	Tan Hsuan Boon of Wee Swee Teow LLP
Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh of Kirpal & Associates Oh Hsiu Leem Osborne of Kirpal & Associates
Syed Abdulkader bin Syed Ali	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh of Kirpal & Associates Oh Hsiu Leem Osborne of Kirpal & Associates
Abdul Samad bin O K Mohamed Haniffa	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Tan Hsuan Boon of Wee Swee Teow LLP
O K Mohamed Haniffa bin Kader Mohideen	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Tan Hsuan Boon of Wee Swee Teow LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Hsuan Boon	Wee Swee Teow LLP
Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh	Kirpal & Associates
Oh Hsiu Leem Osborne	Kirpal & Associates

4. Facts

In 1877, the Property was owned by Kavena Koonjan Chitty.
In 1879, Kavena conveyed the Property to Jayna Ahna Navena Shedumbrum Chitty.
In 1882, Jayna conveyed the Property to Syed Allowei bin Ally Aljunied.
In 1892, Syed Allowei conveyed the Property to Syed Ahmat bin Abdulrahman bin Ahmat Aljunied.
Syed Ahmat passed away in 1894 and a trust was created according to his will.
In 1895, Kavena conveyed the Property to the Hindoo Temple Trustees.
In 1977, the Hindoo Temple Trustees conveyed the Property to the second defendant.
In 1991, the second defendant brought the Property under the Land Titles Act.
In 2000, the second defendant transferred the Property to his son, the first defendant.
In 2017, the plaintiffs issued a writ of summons against the defendants.

5. Formal Citations

Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and another v Abdul Samad bin O K Mohamed Haniffa and others, Suit No 268 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeal No 176 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 248

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1877-01-01	Property owned by Kavena Koonjan Chitty
1879-01-01	Kavena conveyed the Property to Jayna Ahna Navena Shedumbrum Chitty
1882-01-01	Jayna conveyed the Property to Syed Allowei bin Ally Aljunied
1892-01-01	Syed Allowei conveyed the Property to Syed Ahmat bin Abdulrahman bin Ahmat Aljunied
1894-01-01	Syed Ahmat passed away and the Aljunied Trust was created
1895-09-06	Kavena conveyed the Property to the Hindoo Temple Trustees
1975-01-01	New trustees replaced the Hindoo Temple Trustees
1977-01-01	Court order granted powers to sell and convey the Property to the second defendant
1977-12-01	Hindoo Temple Trustees conveyed the Property to the second defendant
1991-01-01	Second defendant brought the Property under the Land Titles Act
1994-01-01	Syed Jafar lodged a caveat with the Registrar of Titles and Deeds
1998-01-01	First plaintiff appointed trustee
2000-10-03	Second defendant transferred the Property to the first defendant
2001-09-25	Registrar sent a letter to Syed Jafar regarding caveat removal
2001-10-12	Transfer instrument between the second and first defendants was registered
2009-01-01	Second plaintiff appointed trustee
2017-03-27	Plaintiffs issued a writ of summons against the defendants
2017-08-22	High Court dismissed the appeal
2017-10-06	Reasons given for dismissing the appeal

7. Legal Issues

Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court held that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Discovery of fraud
  - Accrual of right of action
Defence of Laches
- Outcome: The court held that the defence of laches applied, barring the plaintiffs' claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unreasonable delay
  - Prejudice to defendant
Fraud under Land Titles Act
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of fraud on the part of the defendants to displace the first defendant's indefeasible title.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Indefeasibility of title
  - Wilful blindness
  - Dishonesty or moral turpitude
Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court affirmed the AR’s decision to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - No reasonable cause of action
  - Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
  - Abuse of process

8. Remedies Sought

Rectification of the land register in the Aljunied Trust’s favour

9. Cause of Actions

Rectification of land register

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Land Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Abdul Jalil bin Ahmad bin Talib and others v A Formation Construction Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 592	Singapore	Cited for the principle that subsequent trustees are bound by the acts of previous trustees.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	Court of Appeal	No	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a reasonable cause of action under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court and for the example of bringing a claim for a collateral purpose as an abuse of process.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the ways a claim can be struck out on the ground that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.
Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and another	High Court	No	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 604	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that at the interlocutory stage, the court should accept a party’s affidavit as final and conclusive, at least until the trial.
UAM v UAN and another	Singapore High Court	No	[2017] SGHCF 10	Singapore	Cited for the question of whether the defence of laches could apply to probate proceedings and for the proposition that the plaintiffs’ inaction in commencing the proceedings prejudiced their ability to give evidence.
Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 464	Singapore	Cited for the applicable legal principles in relation to the defence of laches.
Mahidon Nichiar bte Mohd Ali and others v Dawood Sultan Kamaldin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 62	Singapore	Cited for the importance of ascertaining when the Appellants realised the true manner in which the Property was being held because that is the reference point from which any delay on their part in bringing their claim against [the respondent] must be assessed.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bebe bte Mohammad	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 884	Singapore	Cited for the definition of fraud under s 46(2)(a) of the LTA and for the passages after going through a detailed analysis of the parliamentary debates relating to s 160.
Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 286	Singapore	Cited for the general approach towards a challenge under s 46 of the LTA.
Assets Company, Limited v Mere Roihi	Privy Council	Yes	[1905] AC 176	United Kingdom	Cited with approval for the passage from the Privy Council decision that fraud by persons from whom [the registered proprietor] claims does not affect him unless knowledge of it is brought home to him or his agents.
TSM Development Pte Ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine née Pereira	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 721	Singapore	Cited for the interests in land which already subsisted when that land was brought under the Torrens system would have to be protected by lodging a caveat while the land is qualified.
eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 1200	Singapore	Cited for the question of whether the plaintiffs were asserting a common law claim or an equitable claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act	Singapore
Land Titles Act	Singapore
Rules of Court	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Land Titles Act
Limitation Act
Laches
Indefeasibility of title
Fraud
Registered proprietor
Caveat
Trustee
Conveyance
Land register
Torrens system

15.2 Keywords

land
title
fraud
limitation
laches
trust
property
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Land Titles Act	90
Limitation	90
Registration of Title	85
Property Law	80
Civil Practice	75
Laches	70
Fraud and Deceit	70
Estoppel	60
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Land Law
Civil Procedure
Equity
Trust Law