Seah Hong Say (trading as Seah Heng Construction Co) v Housing and Development Board

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 90
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 90
• Defendant Counsel: CR Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: JB Jeyaretnam (JB Jeyaretnam & Co)
• Date: 01 July 1991
• Docket Number: Suit No 628 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Whether court has supervisory jurisdiction over ex gratia payments made by executive government,Compensation payable,s 16 Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152),Compulsory acquisitions,Administrative Law,Administrative discretion,Land,Plaintiff's property acquired by government,Compulsory land acquisition,Land acquisition,Whether plaintiff has right to enforce payment by civil action,Alleged short-fall in ex gratia payment,Alleged shortfall in ex gratia payment,Plaintiff offered ex gratia payment as compensation,Jurisdiction

In this case, the plaintiff claimed the sum of $56,950 or such other sum as might be found to be lawfully due to him for the balance of the compensation payable for the business carried on by him in premises which had been acquired by the defendants.

The facts

The facts in this case were as follows. In 1962 Mdm How Peng, the statutory tenant of the premises at No 21 Jalan Berseh, Singapore (`the premises`) died. The premises comprised two levels or storeys and an attic which had two rooms called Room 1 and Room 2 respectively. On 29 September 1962, a written agreement was entered into between Mdm How Peng`s two sons, Seah Kah Keng and the plaintiff. By the agreement, the plaintiff was to have control of the first level and the right to collect rent from the subtenants of Room 2. The plaintiff was to pay a rent of $30.50 per month to the then landlords, Lee Rubber Co Pte Ltd. Seah Kah Keng was to have control of the second level and the right to collect rent from the subtenants of Room 1. On the same day, another written agreement was entered into between Seah Kah Keng and the plaintiff which provided that the plaintiff`s consent had to be obtained if the second level was to be used for business purposes.

On 27 April 1982 the premises were acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152) (`the Act`) for a public purpose, namely, public housing and general development. The defendants, as is well known, are a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament to develop land designated by the Minister and to manage such developments in pursuance of powers granted to them under the Act. Neither the pleadings nor the documents show how the defendants became directly involved, and a preliminary point raised by defendants` counsel as to whether they had been properly joined as defendants was held over pending clarification by the evidence to be offered.

On 16 June 1982 the defendants conducted a census of the occupants of the premises. It showed that Senco Piling & Trading Co and Soon Leong Civil Engineering Co were in occupation of the second level. These business establishments were owned by the plaintiff`s sons and the plaintiff`s nephew. The census also indicated that the plaintiff was in occupation of the first level of the premises.

On 4 March 1983 possession of the premises was taken by the Collector of Land Revenue under s 16 of the Act. On 19 July 1983 the defendants offered the plaintiff a list of HDB shop premises which were available as alternative business premises for the plaintiff`s occupation, but the plaintiff asked instead for a cash grant as chief tenant of the premises.

Between 17 January 1984 and 9 January 1987, letters were written by the plaintiff and through this solicitors to the defendants claiming a cash grant initially of $58,500 and later, $76,000 in lieu of alternative business premises. The defendants and the Ministry of National Development informed the plaintiff and his solicitors that the plaintiff would be given an ex gratia cash grant of $14,625. This sum was later increased to $19,050 which was finally accepted by the plaintiff. The defendants had also made payment of ex gratia cash grants in January 1985 to both Soon Leong Civil Engineering Co and Senco Piling & Trading Co of $14,625 each.

On 2 March 1987, being dissatisfied with the amount offered, the plaintiff commenced an action by writ of summons. It was common ground that the premises were acquired by the government of Singapore; that the plaintiff claimed a cash grant of $76,000 in lieu of alternative business premises; that a Warrant to Dispossess Unlawful Occupant was issued against the plaintiff; and that the defendants paid the plaintiff a cash grant of $19,050. The statement of claim stated that the plaintiff informed the defendants that he did not require alternative accommodation for his business and would take the full compensation payable to businesses evicted from premises and who were not seeking alternative accommodation. The plaintiff contended that the full sum payable in such a case was $76,000. The plaintiff accordingly claimed the sum of $56,950 or such other sum as may be found to be lawfully due to him for the balance of the compensation payable for business evicted from premises acquired.

These claims were denied by the defendants. They contended at the trial that the resettlement policy implemented by them was on a purely voluntary and ex gratia basis which gave the persons concerned no legal, contractual or other right. The guidelines under the policy were applied by the defendants to provide those who satisfied the criteria for alternative accommodation with concessional rentals ranging from three to five years, or alternatively, a cash grant. The plaintiff elected for a cash grant and was accordingly paid $19,050 which was the sum payable to him at the sole discretion of the defendants.

The plaintiff gave oral evidence and denied the existence of the other occupiers. He said that his father had been the principal tenant of Lee Rubber Co. In the 1962 agreement, his brother was to have the second level and he was to have the first level. The second level was only for residential purposes and the first level was for business. No other business was carried on in the premises by anyone else. This was also the position in 1982 when the property was acquired. There were no businesses carried on there in 1982 by Senco Piling & Trading Co, Soon Leong Civil Engineering Co, or by CH Seah Trading and Construction Co, another company which claimed to be in the premises. After acquisition, he had asked for a cash grant instead of alternative premises. In 1982, he was told that he would be compensated $58,500, but the amount would be divided four ways. He refused. The rate was increased to $76,000 on 8 August 1985.

The plaintiff`s evidence at the trial was confusing, even if allowances have to be made for the looseness in interpretation from Chinese to English. When he was referred in cross-examination to the various occupants he said that: `They were not under my account.` `They only stayed in my place.` `It has nothing to do with me, I can`t control it.` When it was put to him that there were other companies in occupation, viz Senco, Soon Leong, CH Seah, his answer was `If there were intruders, I would report them. No one has the right to occupy the upper floor.`

The defendants called a resettlement inspector to give evidence. Her job was to take a census of occupants of properties being dispossessed by acquisition. She interviewed Seah Chee Huat of CH Seah Trading & Construction Co. She pointed out in the plans the various sites occupied. On the first level, CH Seah Trading & Construction Co was at the place marked `21T`, while the plaintiff was at the top left-hand corner marked `21A`. At the second level (`21S`) was Soon Leong Civil Engineering Co and at the second level (`21R`) was Senco Piling & Trading Co. Her evidence under cross-examination was instructive:

Q: Were you given a list of tenants and occupiers?

A: I was not given a list.

Q: Did you and colleague meet Seah Cheng Boon?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he claim to be a tenant?

A: He said he had an office there.

Q: Did he say by what right or grant he was occupying part of premises?

A: When he said he had office, we asked him to produce documents to prove it. He produced BR [business registration] document.

Q: Did he produce any rent receipt?

A: No, neither on that day nor at any time after that.

Q: Where did he say his office was?

A: Shown on [332] [second level], the shaded portion at back.

Q: Did you look at the space?

A: I did.

Q: Anybody working there?

A: It was his own business. He was working there. Nobody else. But there was a telephone.

Q: Did you check the telephone directory?

A: I did not.

Q: Did he show any letterheads or business documents?

A: Not during that visit, subsequently he showed them to senior resettlement officer. They are in the case file.

Q: Look at [79] [Soon Leong Civil Engineering]. Did Seah Cheng Boon claim interest? Second business?

A: Yes.

Q: Apart from BR form, any rent receipt?

A: No, at no time.

Q: Looking at [333], Soon Leong occupied adjacent space to Senco?

A: Yes.

Q: Any partitioning to separate them?

A: No, but there were different tables.

Q: Any letterhead of Soon Leong Engineering?

A: No, but it was produced later to my superior.

Q: Did you check the telephone directory?

A: I did not.

Q: Re CH Seah Trading, you met him Seah Chee Huat on 12 March 1983?

A: Yes, I did not meet him on first visit on 16 June 1982.

Q: Did you see any business plaques?

A: No. His office was 21T in [335] on ground floor.

Q: Did you see any plaque?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he produce rent receipts etc?

A: No.

Q: Why has CH Seah not completed the lower half of [335]?

A: [335] was not done on that day. He did not come later to complete the form.

Q: Did he produce any letterhead.

A: No, only BR. I do not know whether he produced any to my senior officers.

Q: Apart from visits in June 1982 and March 1983 did you visit premises again?

A: Yes, on many occasions. I did not see people there, they had gone out to work.

Q: Look at [80], plaintiff`s survey form. You visited him 17 June 1982?

A: Yes [identifies plaintiff].

Q: He showed BR?

A: Yes.

Q: Rent receipts?

A: No, I did not see any later.

Q: Did you understand from him he was the principal tenant of ground floor?

A: Not on that day, but later.

Q: Did he show you the agreements with his brother on [35, 36, 37]?

A: He showed them to my superior.

Q: Look at [37], did you ask him whether he had given permission to the other three businesses to operate there?

A: My understanding was that my duty was to survey the premises, not to ask such questions.

In my opinion, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the first place that he had a legal right to be paid the...