456 [2018] 1 AMR

Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor 1

v
Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
5
High Court, Penang – Application for Judicial Review No. PA 25-20-06/2016
Azmi Abdullah JC

December 1, 2017 10

Administrative law – Remedies – Certiorari – Respondent revoked temporary lodging

house permit – Application by land owner on which hotel was standing for change of use
of building from "commercial offices" to "commercial hotel" rejected – Whether 15
termination, with temporary licence still having six months to run to its conclusion, just
and reasonable – Local Government Act 1976, s 9

The first applicant was granted a temporary hotel licence for a period between
November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016. The licence was granted in pursuant of 20
a moratorium by the State Government of Penang for unlicensed hotels. The
temporary licence was however terminated on April 22, 2016 premised on the
reason that an application by the owner of the land on which the hotel was
standing for a change of use of the building from "commercial offices" to 25
"commercial hotel" was rejected on April 22, 2016. Hence the instant application
for judicial review for an order of certiorari that the respondent's decision to
revoke the temporary lodging house permit be quashed and/or set aside.
30
Issue

Whether the termination at the material time that it was done, with the
temporary licence still having six months to run to its conclusion is just and 35
reasonable.

Held, allowing the application with costs of RM25,000

1. When the temporary licence was issued to the applicants, the building at 40
the material time has not undergone a change of use of the building and the
temporary licence was in its validity and duration not premised on
whether the original landowner could successfully apply for a change of
use. When the licence was granted to the applicants, there was no change of
use and the license was conditional to a successful change of use
application. [see p 461 para 13]

2. A successful or unsuccessful change of use of application would be

relevant or a condition only for a permanent license application by the
applicants after the expiry of the temporary licence on October 31, 2016 and
should not be a relevant consideration for the validity of an already
 Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v
[2018] 1 AMR Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang 457

1 granted and issued temporary licence. Thus the termination at the point of
time when the granted temporary licence still has six months to its
expiration was definitely premature. [see p 461 para 14]

5 3. The unsuccessful change of use application is not a relevant consideration

to the validity of the licence, though temporary, that has already been
granted and issued to the applicants by the respondent. [see p 461 para 15 -
p 462 para 15]
10 4. It is not a condition for the continued validity of the temporary licence
during the period that the temporary licence continues to run that the
applicants must obtain a successful change of use. [see p 462 para 17]

15 5. Although the application for change of use failed, the validity period for
the temporary licence should still be allowed to run its course until its
natural expiry of the fixed term period on October 31, 2016. [see p 463 para
18]
20
6. The effect of the failure to obtain the change of use on the part of the
applicants is merely that the respondent would be entitled to refuse an
extension of the licence with the temporary licence dying its natural death
25 and not to terminate the temporary licence already obtained before such
licence reaches its expiry. [see p 465 para 29]

7. The decision for the early termination is in contravention of s 9 of the Local

Government Act 1976. The moratorium is a state planning committee
30 decision to license unlicensed hotels. The local authority being the
respondent in this case cannot on its volition elect to revoke or terminate
the temporary licence granted in accordance with the state planning
committee policy before its natural expiry. [see p 465 para 30 - p 466 para 31]
35
Cases referred to by the court

Ngiam Geok Mooi v Pacific World Destination East Sdn Bhd [2016] 6 CLJ 395, CA (ref)
40 Pembinaan Batu Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Selangor & Anor [2016]
AMEJ 0895; [2016] 5 CLJ 250, CA (ref)
Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd
[1978] 1 MLJ 135, FC (foll)
Sangka b Chuka & Anor v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Mersing, Johor & 5 Ors [2016]
AMEJ 0109; [2016] 4 CLJ 585, HC (ref)

Legislation referred to by the court

Malaysia
Local Government Act 1976, ss 9, 107(2)
Rules of Court 2012, Order 37, Order 53 r 3(2)
458 All Malaysia Reports [2018] 1 AMR

Ong Yu Shin and Marcia Lopez (The Chambers of Yu Shin Ong) for applicants 1
Murgan D Maniam and Cyrus Lim (Presgrave & Matthews) for respondent

Judgment received: January 2, 2018

5
Azmi Abdullah JC

Introduction

[1] The application for judicial review in this case was granted its leave on July 10
13, 2016 for the applicants to commence judicial review proceedings against the
respondent for these reliefs:

(a) An order for certiorari that the respondent's decision on April 22, 2016 to 15
revoke the temporary lodging house permit dated November 1, 2015
with Serial No. A00984 be quashed and/or set aside.

(b) An order of mandamus that the respondent is required to reinstate the

20
temporary lodging house permit dated November 1, 2015 with Serial No.
A00984.

(c) Damage and "constitutional compensation" to be assessed by the

honourable court and to be paid by the respondent to the applicants 25
pursuant to the said decision.

(d) Costs to be paid by the respondent to the applicants.

30
(e) Any other reliefs and/or further reliefs deemed to be fit and reasonable
by this honourable court.

[2] The cause papers for the judicial review application are:
35
(a) Statement in accordance with Order 53 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012.

(b) Afidavit sokongan of the applicant affirmed on June 10, 2016

(c) Afidavit balasan (1) pemohon-pemohon affirmed on October 11, 2016. 40

(d) Afidavit balasan (2) pemohon-pemohon affirmed on November 8, 2016.

(e) Afidavit balasan (3) pemohon-pemohon affirmed on December 8, 2016.

(f) Afidavit balasan (4) pemohon-pemohon affirmed on January 6, 2017.

[3] The respondent opposes the said application by filing these affidavits:

(i) Afidavit jawapan (1) responden affirmed on September 13, 2016.

(ii) Afidavit jawapan (2) responden affirmed on October 17, 2016.

 Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v
Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
[2018] 1 AMR Azmi Abdullah JC 459

1 (iii) Afidavit jawapan (3) responden affirmed on November 24, 2016

(iv) Afidavit jawapan (4) responden affirmed on December 20, 2016 .

(v) Afidavit jawapan (5) responden affirmed on January 12, 2017.

5
[4] Prayer (b) for mandamus however, was not pursued by the applicants as the
prayer has been rendered academic due to the licence granted to the applicants
having already expired on October 30, 2016. The interveners application was
10 allowed by this court, however a settlement was then achieved between the
applicants and the interveners prior to the judicial review being heard hence the
interveners did not participate at the hearing of the judicial review.

[5] This court having perused the written submissions of the applicants and the
15 respondent as well as further oral submissions decided on September 26, 2017 to
allow the judicial review with costs of RM25,000. Dissatisfied with the findings of
this court, the respondent has now filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal hence
these grounds of judgment.
20
Salient facts

[6] The first applicant was the applicant in October 2015 for the temporary hotel
licence with the second applicant being the hotel for which the licence (Ref No. A
25
000984) was granted for a period between November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2016.
The respondent was the local authority with the power and authority to grant the
said licence. The application is marked as exh A in the afidavit sokongan affirmed
on June 10, 2016 (encl 4).
30
[7] The licence was granted in pursuant of a moratorium by the State
Government of Penang for unlicensed hotels marked as exh B in encl 4, known
as:
35
"Keputusan Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perancang Negeri Bil. 3/2015 [K31-3/2015]
- Pemutihan Hotel Tanpa Lesen di Kawasan Pentadbiran Majlis Perbandaran
Pulau Pinang (MPPP)" bertarikh 18.03.2015.

40 [8] Payment of RM4,800 was made by the applicants in pursuant of the

moratorium on November 2, 2015 with the temporary hotel licence being
granted for the period of November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2016. The receipt is
marked as exh C in encl 4.

[9] The terms and conditions for the temporary licence marked as exh D in encl
4 are as below:

1. Memasang 2 unit alat pemadam api (9 kg) jenis serbuk kering (dry powder
fire extinguisher) dalam jarak setiap 15 meter laluan bangunan di setiap
tingkat bangunan hotel.
460 All Malaysia Reports [2018] 1 AMR

2. Memasang loceng kebakaran (fire alarm) jenis manual pecah kaca (break 1
glass) atau jenis automatik pengesan haba/asap bagi setiap satu unit dalam
jarak 4.5 meter laluan bangunan dan jug a di dalam setiap bilik hotel.

3. Memasang papan tanda keluar "KELUAR" jenis berlampu di setiap pintu

akses utama bangunan hotel. 5

4. Memasang pelekat tunjuk arah keluar dari bangunan hotel.

5. Memasang lampu kecemasan (emergency light) yang mencukupi di

10
tempat-tempat strategik untuk laluan kecemasan seperti laluan utama,
akses tangga dan pintu masuk/keluar.

6. Semua pintu akses utama untuk laluan kecemasan tidak dibenarkan sama
sekali dikunci dengan mangga (padlock). 15
7. Memastikan semua akses utama untuk laluan kecemasan bebas dari
sebarang halangan.

8. Memasang pelekat "DILARANG MEROKOK" yang mencukupi di 20

tempat-tempat strategik termasuk semua bilik hotel.

9. Menyediakan peti rawatan kecemasan (first aid Kit) yang sempurna dan
mencukupi.
25
10. Menjaga dan menyelenggara premis hotel supaya sentiasa bersih dan bebas
dari sebarang serangga-serangga pembawa penyakit berjangkit.

11. Mengambil inisiatif untuk mengemukakan permohonan dan mendapat

kelulusan merancang bagi tukar guna bangunan kepada premis hotel dan 30
mematuhi syarat-syaratnya dalam tempoh setahun (01 November 2014
hingga 30 Oktober 2015).

12. Mengutip fi kerajaan tempatan daripada penghuni hotel dan 35

membayarnya kepada Majlis mengikut jadual pembayaran yang telah
ditetapkan.

[10] The temporary licence however was terminated with immediate effect on
April 22, 2016 as reflected in the letter from the respondent marked as exh E in 40
encl 4. The termination was premised upon the reason that an application by the
owner of the land on which the hotel was standing, being Jelutong Development
Sdn Bhd, for a change of use of the building from "commercial offices" to
"commercial hotel" was rejected on April 22, 2016 with the relevant document
marked as exh F in encl 4.

[11] This court in hearing this judicial review pertaining to the prayers contained
in the application has to decide whether the termination at the material time that
it was done, with the temporary licence still having six months to run to its
conclusion is just and reasonable.
 Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v
Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
[2018] 1 AMR Azmi Abdullah JC 461

1 Governing principles

[12] The precedent of Ngiam Geok Mooi v Pacific World Destination East Sdn Bhd
[2016] 6 CLJ 395 has spelled out the principles the court should be considering in
an application for judicial review:
5
[17] The classic statement of the ground for judicial review is that of Lord Diplock
in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister For The Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 400:
"... one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which
10 administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I
would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural
impropriety"'. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact,
onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in
good faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act etc., fall
15
under the heading "illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to
comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as
audi alteram partem absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations,
failure to give reasons etc. (p 402)
20
Deliberations of the court

[13] This court is satisfied that when the temporary licence was issued to the
applicants, the building at the material time has not undergone a change of use of
25
the building and the temporary licence was in its validity and duration not
premised on whether the original landowner could successfully apply for a
change of use. When the licence was granted to the applicants, it's undisputed
that there was no change of use and the license was conditional to a successful
30 change of use application.

[14] A successful or unsuccessful change of use of application would be relevant

or a condition only for a permanent license application by the applicants after the
35 expiry of the temporary licence on October 31, 2016 and should not be a relevant
consideration for the validity of an already granted and issued temporary
licence. Thus the termination at the point of time when the granted temporary
licence still has six months to its expiration was definitely premature.
40 [15] This court is definitely convinced and satisfied that the unsuccessful change
of use application is not a relevant consideration to the validity of the licence,
though temporary, that has already been granted and issued to the applicants by
the respondent.

[16] The media statement dated October 2, 2015 by the State EXCO Member,
Chow Kon Yew has clearly stated that hotels which are on temporary licence but
fails to obtain a change of use would not face any action until their temporary
licence expires. The relevant statement marked as exh G in encl 4 is hereby
produced:
462 All Malaysia Reports [2018] 1 AMR

Program Pemutihan Hotel Tanpa Lesen 1

Kenyataan Media YB Chow Kon Yew, EXCO Kerajaan Tempatan, Pengurusan Lalu
Lintas dan Tebatan Banjir pada 2 Oktober 2015.
Latar Belakang 5
Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang telah melancarkan program pemutihan hotel tanpa lessen
pada awal 2014 bagi mengawal bilangan hotel yang beroperasi tanpa lesen di negeri ini.
Tempoh pemutihan adalah dari Mac 2014 hingga 30 September 2014.
Walaubagaimanapun sambutan adalah kurang menggalakkan. 10
Jawatankuasa Pemutihan Hotel Tanpa Lesen kemudiannya telah membuat keputusan
untuk memberi permit sementara selama satu tahun kepada hotel-hotel di bawah
program pemutihan berkuatkuasa dari 1 November 2014 sehingga 31 Oktober 2015
dengan bayaran permit tahunan: 15

I) Rumah Tumpangan/Hotel: RM2,400 setahun

II) Rumah Tumpangan Biasa/Dometry: RM 1,200 setahun

20
Dalam usaha untuk membantu pengusaha-pengusaha hotel memperolehi lesen, Pihak
Berkuasa Negeri telah memutuskan untuk memberi pengecualianlkelonggaran kepada
hotel-hotel yang terletak di dalam zon "Perniagaan" iaitu:

(i) Pengecualian Permohonan Kebenaran Merancang 25

(ii) Pengecualian Laporan Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) - digantikan dengan

Heritage Impact Statement (HIS)
30
(iii) Menerima Tawaran Sumbangan Tempat Letak Kenderaan (TLK)

(iv) Kelonggaran syarat kebombaan (10 unit ke bawah)

Namun demikian, adalah didapati kebanyakan pengusaha-pengusaha hotel masih belum
35
mengemukakan permohonan kepada PBT dan didapati juga terdapat pertambahan
bilangan-bilangan hotel/rumah tumpangan tanpa kebenaran yang sedang beroperasi di
Negeri Pulau Pinang.

[17] This court is of the view that it is not a condition for the continued validity 40
of the temporary licence during the period that the temporary licence continues
to run that the applicants must obtain a successful change of use. The only
condition prevalent is that when the temporary licence has been granted, there
must be an application for change of use and the fact that this was done by the
first applicant is undisputed, only that it was rejected.

[18] This court finds that though the application for change of use failed, the
validity period for the temporary licence should still be allowed to run its course
until its natural expiry of the fixed term period on October 31, 2016. There was no
necessity for the abrupt termination by the respondent since nowhere it is stated
that a failure to obtain a change of use would result in an immediate termination
of the temporary already granted to the applicants.
 Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v
Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
[2018] 1 AMR Azmi Abdullah JC 463

1 [19] By using the failure to obtain a change of use as a reason to terminate the
temporary licence renders the action of the respondent as taking into account an
irrelevant consideration that was never imposed as a condition when the
temporary licence was granted in the first place. The same media statement with
5 the excerpt produced below has clearly stated that the temporary licence would
be allowed to run its course and action would only be taken upon its expiry:

Isu semasa

10 Mesyuarat MMK pada 30 September 2015 telah membuat keputusan bahawa program
pemulihan hotel akan dilanjut selama satu tahun lagi dengan syarat-syarat berikut:

Kategori 1

15 Bagi pengusaha-pengusaha Hotel yang berdaftar di bawah program pemutihan yang telah
mengemukakan permohonan pelan kepada PB T pada atau sebelum 31. 10.2015 adalah
Jayak untuk memperbaharui permit sementara bagi tahun berikutnya
(01.11.2015-31.10.2016) dengan kadar bayaran Jama (RM 2,400.00/RM 1,200.00)
20 mengikut kategori rumah tumpanganlhotel)

Fasa 4

Rumah tumpangan!hotel dibawah program pemutihan hotel yang telah

25 menjelaskan bayaran permit sementara tahunan yang mana permohonan pelan
telah di tolak oleh PBT akan juga diambil tindakan apabila permit tahunan
sudah luput.

[20] The applicants argue that the termination was an effect of a letter by Jeff Ooi,
30 the Member of Parliament of Jelutong dated April 18, 2016 marked as exh H in
encl 4 as the real reason for termination and this indicates that the actual reason
for the termination of the temporary licence being a political interference due to
the political alliance of the applicants. This court however, restrains itself from
35 taking cognisance of this as being the reason for the termination of the temporary
licence by the respondent as there are no corroborative evidence to make such a
finding.

[21] This court's concern and consideration is only attributed to the fact that the
40
premature termination of the temporary licence was made on the basis of the
rejection of the change of use whereas no such condition was ever a condition for
the temporary licence to remain in force. The failure to obtain a change of use
would and should only determine that a permanent licence is not granted to the
applicants rather than providing a reason or ammunition for a premature
termination of the valid temporary licence that has already been granted and yet
to reach its expiry period which still has six months to continue.

[22] It is also most pertinent to note that 17 technical departments of the state
government have not objected to the change of use applied for yet the change of
use application was however rejected without any fathomable reason. The
464 All Malaysia Reports [2018] 1 AMR

approvals are reflected in exh M of the afidavit balasan (1) pemohon-pemohon 1

marked as encl 16.

[23] From the affidavits filed, it is apparent that the applicants were never
accorded the right to be heard in view of the premature termination of the
5
temporary licence hence the principles of natural justice have been deprived
from the applicants. The Court of Appeal in Pembinaan Batu Jaya Sdn Bhd v
Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Selangor & Anor [2016] AMEJ 0895; [2016] 5 CLJ 250
held:
10
[51] His Lordship went on to state:

"In Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB Lord Denning observed

that where a person has some 'right or interest, or legitimate expectation of which
it would not be fair to deprive him without a hearing or reasons given, then these 15
should be afforded him accordingly, as the case may demand'."

[24] The respondent argues that there were actually two lists for the "projek
pemutihan tanpa lesen" with list 1 being hotels under the moratorium 20
programme and list 2 being hotels not under the moratorium programme and
the applicants herein were under list 2. This court finds this argument untenable
and misconceived as the existence of the so called two lists were never made
privy to the applicants when the temporary licence was granted to the applicants
25
in perusing the relevant documents exhibited in the various affidavits.

[25] Even if there were really two lists then the applicants would belong to list 1
as in reference to the statement of YB Chow Kon Yeow pertaining to the
conditions for list 1, the applicants would have to submit the plan for change of 30
use before October 31, 2015 with the requirement to pay RM2,400 for the hotel
permit. The applicants actually complied to these conditions in reference to exh
A16 in afidavit jawapan (1) responden marked as encl 15 (application for change
of use made on August 13, 2015) and exh A of encl 4 (payment of RM2,400 being 35
made).

[26] The respondent depends heavily on the use of s 107(2) of the Local
Government Act 1976 and argues that the said section contains an all conquering
provision to validate the act of the respondent in revoking the temporary license 40
without providing a reason. The section states that:

Every licence or permit granted shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions
as the local authority may think fit and shall be revocable by the local authority at
any time without assigning any reason therefore.

[27] This court however is guided by the words of the venerable his Royal
Highness, the late Raja Azlan Shah CJ in the Federal Court case of Pengarah Tanah
dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 135 at
148 which rings most aptly and truly in this situation. It reads:
 Datin Noorzaina binti Mat Zain & Anor v
Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang
[2018] 1 AMR Azmi Abdullah JC 465

1 ... Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In
particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a
proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.

In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is
5 wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene. The courts are
the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression. In
these days when government departments and public authorities have such great
powers and influence, this is a most important safeguard for the ordinary citizen:
10 so that the courts can see that these great powers and influence are exercised in
accordance with law. I would once again emphasise what often has been said
before, that "public bodies must be compelled to observe the law and it is essential
that bureaucracy should be kept in its place" (per Oankwerts LJ in Bradbury v
15 London Borough of Enfield ...

[28] Given this most illuminating observation, this court is fully convinced that
the courts are fully entitled to scrutinise the events in this application for judicial
review as the courts are the last bastion to ensure the principles of fair play and
20 justice are observed in the administrative workings of the respondent.

[29] This court is further convinced that the effect of the failure to obtain the
change of use on the part of the applicants is merely, that the respondent would
25 be entitled to refuse an extension of the licence with the temporary licence dying
its natural death and not to terminate the temporary licence already obtained
before such licence reaches its expiry.

[30] The decision for the early termination seems to be in contravention of s 9 of

30 the Local Government Act 1976 which gives the state authority the liberty to give
the local authority directions of a general character not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act, on the policy to be followed in the exercise of powers
conferred and duties imposed on the local authority. It reads:
35
(1) The State Authority may from time to time give the local authority
directions of a general character, and not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act, on the policy to be followed in the exercise of the powers conferred
and the duties imposed on the local authority by or under this Act in
40 relation to matters which appear to the State Authority to affect the interests
of the local authority area, and the local authority shall as soon as possible
give effects to all such directions.

[31] The moratorium is undisputedly a State Planning Committee decision to

license unlicensed hotels and the applicants have been given a temporary licence
which runs until October 31, 2016. The local authority being the respondent in
this case cannot on its volition elect to revoke or terminate the temporary licence
granted in accordance with the State Planning Committee policy before its
natural expiry.
466 All Malaysia Reports [2018] 1 AMR

[32] The respondent further argues that the temporary licence was revoked due 1
the applicants breaching clause 11 of the permit conditions stated at paragraph 8
herein, in failing to obtain a change of use which is related to the character of the
building, which this court is not in concurrence with this argument. The
averment amounts to stating that the applicants were not deserving of being 5
granted the temporary licence in the first place hence this argument has no basis
as the applicants were actually granted the temporary licence by the authorities.

[33] Clause 11 pertains to applying for a change of use and it can never be
disputed that such an application was made hence the applicants have 10
conformed to the words "mengambil inisiatif" contained in clause 11. Clause 11
upon its reading, never imposed that a failure to obtain a change of use would
result in early termination of the temporary licence already granted.
15
[34] This court is definitely convinced that the applicants have a legitimate
expectation for the licence to run its course until the expiry on October 31, 2016
and the early termination was an unjustified act. In Sangka b Chuka & Anor v
Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Mersing, Johor & 5 Ors [2016] AMEJ 0109; [2016] 4 CLJ 585 20
it was held:

[85] This is not to mention the documentary evidence in the form of letters
authored by officials of the first and fourth respondents referred to earlier, clearly
giving rise to at the very least a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicants 25
that they would be consulted or afforded the opportunity to be heard. In Council
of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, Lord Fraser
identified two situations that could give rise to a legitimate expectation. First is
where there is an express promise by the relevant authority and secondly, where 30
there exists a regular practice that an applicant may reasonably expect would
continue. (p 37 (AMEJ); p 619 (CLJ))

Decision of the court

35
[35] This court upon the deliberations made has decided to allow the application
by the applicants pertaining to this judicial review to quash the decision of the
respondent made on April 22, 2016 as the decision was unreasonable. Costs of
RM25,000 is granted to the applicants. Assessment of damages is to proceed 40
before the senior assistant registrar with the applicants having to pursue the
same under Order 37 of the Rules of Court 2012.