Basic HTML Version
32. Material litigations
continued ...
(g)
On 29 June 2012, a writ of Summons was filed against SPAD in the High Court in the respect of the above same
subject matter as stated in (d), (e) and (f). The Writ of Summons was served on 1 August 2012. SPAD filed its
Memorandum of Appearance on 1 August 2012.
The Plaintiffs are claiming for damages for alleged breach/repudiation of agreements entered into by each of the
plaintiffs with SPAD in relation to sale of shares by each of the plaintiffs for shares in third party companies. SPAD
served a Memorandum of Appearance on SPAD on 14 August 2012. The Statement of Defence was served on
29 August 2012.
The matter will be jointly tried with (d), (e) and (f) above on 17-21 June 2013.
The Directors, in consultation with SPAD’s advocates, are of the opinion that SPAD has strong merits in the
case.
(h)
SPAD faces a charge in the Mukah Sessions Court under Section 16(1) of the Environmental Quality Act 1974.
The charge is that SPAD was found to discharge effluent into watercourse whereby the effluent containing
substances in concentration exceeding the stipulated limits under Regulation 12 (4) Environmental Quality
(Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) Regulations 1977, namely:
the concentration of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), 3 days, 30°C is 144 mg/l, exceeding the limit of
20mg/l and hence contravened Condition No. 2.1.6(i) of the Compliance Schedule No. JPKKS 00645A of the
Licence No. 000645 for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012.
On 21 February 2013, SPAD pleaded guilty to the aforesaid charge and was fined RM8,000.
(i)
In a new suit involving SPAD, a writ of Summons dated 25 January 2013 was served on SPAD on 8 February
2013. The Plaintiffs sued 4 Defendants, the second of whom is SPAD. The Plaintiffs are claiming, amongst
others, a declaration that the Plaintiffs and/or their ancestors have NCR in or over certain land. The Plaintiffs
pleaded that there was no proper extinguishment of the Plaintiffs’ right and neither was there any provision
made for compensation and no compensation was ever made by the 3rd and 4th Defendants. The Plaintiffs
further pleaded that the Provisional Lease issued to SPAD over Lot 6 Bawan Land District was unconstitutional
and therefore null and void ab initio. The Plaintiffs claim for damages and a declaration that the 1st Defendant
and SPAD or its agents(s) or servants(s) had trespassed and are wrongfully trespassing on the said land and the
1st Defendant and SPAD or its agents(s) or servants(s) are to dismantle all its structures and buildings on and to
remove all its machineries or equipments from and to vacate the said land therefrom.
The first mention was on 27 March 2013. A Statement of Defence has been filed. The matter is now fixed for
pre-trial case management on 28 June 2013.
The Directors, in consultation with the SPAD’s advocates, are of the opinion that SPAD has strong merits in the
case.
Notes to the Financial Statements
[ 114 ]
SARAWAK PLANTATION BERHAD
ANNUAL REPORT 2012