Re San Development Co's Application

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 06 September 1971
• Neutral Citation: [1971] SGHC 14
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 19 of 1971
• Date: 06 September 1971
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1971
• Plaintiff Counsel: EFN Gratiaen QC and Harry L Wee (Braddell Bros)
• Citation: [1971] SGHC 14
• Defendant Counsel: GS Hill and Wu Tchi Chu (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Section 23(3) Land Acquisition Act 1966 (No 41 of 1966),Administrative discretion,Whether Commissioner failing to exercise discretion,Mandamus,Remedies,Appropriate order to be made,Whether mandamus directing manner in which duty should be performed should be granted,Whether Commissioner having discretion under s 23(3) of the Land Acquisition Act to allow appeal to proceed,Administrative Law,Notice of appeal filed out of time due to solicitorsÂ’ mistake

This is an application by San Development Co (Singapore) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) for an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the order made on 21 September 1970, by the Commissioner of Appeals, Appeals Board (Land Acquisition), and also for an order of mandamus directing the said commissioner to hear and determine the appeal of the applicants against the award made by the collector of land revenue.

The following facts are not in dispute. The applicants are the owners of land known as Lot 112/44 of Mukim I. A notice of compulsory acquisition of the said land was served on the applicants in February 1970, and the award of the collector was given on 31 July 1970, stating the compensation which was allowed for the said land at $220,400. On 8 August 1970, the applicants wrote to the collector stating that they wished to appeal to the appeals board. A notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the applicants by their solicitors on 17 August 1970. The notice of appeal was lodged three days out of time. The applicants` solicitors then made an application to the appeals board on 7 September 1970 for permission, under the provisions of s 23(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1966, to proceed with the appeal notwithstanding that the notice of appeal was not lodged within the time limited. The only affidavit filed in support of the application was that of one Abdul Rahim Effendi, who described himself as a clerk in the employ of the applicants` solicitors and this was what he stated:

On a date which I cannot remember in the second week of August last I was instructed by my employer, Mr PT Wong, to prepare a Notice of Appeal against the award herein. Due to pressure of work I merely had a quick glance through the papers in the files and got the wrong impression that the said award was made on 8 August which would give me time until 21 August within which to file the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly the Notice of Appeal was filed on 17 August 1970.

It has since been drawn to my attention that the award herein was in fact made on 31 July 1970, and consequently the said Notice of Appeal was filed by me three days out of time.

The application was heard on 21 September 1970, by the commissioner who dismissed it.

Section 23(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1966 provides:

The Board may, in its discretion and on such terms as it may see fit, permit any person to proceed with an appeal notwithstanding that the notice of appeal or petition of appeal was not lodged within the time limited therefor by this section, if it be shown to the satisfaction of the Board that such person was prevented from lodging such notice or petition in due time owing to absence from Singapore, sickness or other reasonable cause and that there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of such person.

At the hearing of the application it was contended on behalf of the applicants that the expression `other reasonable cause` in s 23(3) gave the board a discretion to permit the applicants to proceed with the appeal when the delay was due to a mistake made by the lawyer`s clerk. For the collector it was argued that for ss 23(3) to apply the...