LAMBANG KELANA SDN BHD v. TENAGA NASIONAL BHD & ORS
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LEE SWEE SENG FCJ
AZIMAH OMAR JCA
WONG KIAN KHEONG JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: N-01(A)-491-07-2022]
16 MAY 2025
[2025] CLJ JT (6)

Abstract – In interpreting the provisions governing the wayleave procedures under the Electricity Supply Act 1990, the purposive approach ought to be preferred. This is because, a strict and literal interpretation of the provisions will bring about an absurd and unjust result. Regards must also be had to the legislative intent of Parliament in promulgating the said provisions. Other than that, considering that the provisions are largely concerned with the constitutional rights of land ownership, the interpretation must also be in tandem with art. 13(2) of the Federal Constitution.

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal – Judgment – Appeal against judgment of High Court – High Court allowed licensee of Electricity Supply Act 1990's ('licensee') application for judicial review to quash decision of State Authority – State Authority awarded late payment charges/interest to landowner of land due to licensee's encroachment upon land – Whether High Court fell into illegality and irrationality in arriving at decision – Whether High Court correct in its appreciation, interpretation and application of ss. 11 and 16(2) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 – Whether High Court correctly appreciated issues of attribution of delay and landowner's ultimate entitlement to late payment charges/interest

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Construction of statutes – Interpretation – Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 11 & 16(2) – Whether payment of compensation should include late payment charges/interest – Whether ought to be afforded purposive approach or strict literal interpretation – Whether promoted legislative intent – Whether ought to be interpreted in tandem with art. 13(2) of Federal Constitution