Wong Meng Yuen Eddie and Another v Soh Chee Kong and Others

JudgeKarthigesu JC
Judgment Date20 July 1990
Neutral Citation[1990] SGHC 48
Citation[1990] SGHC 48
Defendant CounselHee Theng Fong (Hee Theng Fong & Co)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselChia Choy Ping (Leong Chia & Lee)
Date20 July 1990
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 386 of 1990
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterLand,Requisitions to title,Conveyance,Right of purchaser to rescind agreement if government requisitions unsatisfactory,Road widening proposal,Whether requisition unsatisfactory

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiffs (the vendors) are the joint owners of the freehold land comprised in the government resurvey lot 233-2 of mukim 25 which has an area of approximately 3,723 sq ft on which there is a dwelling house known as No 7 Lorong 10, Geylang, Singapore (the property). The defendants are Buddhist monks (the purchasers).

By an agreement in writing dated 10 October 1989 (the said agreement) the vendors agreed to sell the property to the purchasers at the price of $409,530 subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement.


The sale was subject to the Singapore Law Society`s Conditions of Sale 1981 and the date for completion was fixed as being 14 weeks from the date of the said agreement, that is to say, 15 January 1990.
The said agreement also required that 10% of the purchase price in the sum of $40,953 be paid to the vendors` solicitors as a deposit immediately on the signing of the said agreement which the vendors` solicitors were to hold as stakeholders pending completion.

The said agreement further provided that upon completion the purchasers were to pay the vendors` charges, referred to in the said agreement as `the chargees`, all outstanding sums due as well as interest from the date of the said agreement to the date of completion together with all necessary expenses, fees and costs in respect of the discharge of the charges as determined by the chargees, in full discharge of the charges existing against the property in favour of the chargees.
In exchange thereof the chargees were to obtain an order of court discharging the charges in favour of the chargees and registered in Vol 2340 No 44, Vol 2344 No 67 and Vol 2361 No 173 and also execute such documents that are necessary to procure the discharge of the said charges (cl 2 of the said agreement). The chargees are not parties to the said agreement.

The clause in the said agreement which gives rise to these proceedings is cl 9 and it reads as follows:

The sale herein shall be subject to the purchaser`s solicitors receiving satisfactory replies to their legal requisitions to the various government departments so far as such replies relate to the said property and if any of such replies are found to be unsatisfactory in that the said property is adversely affected by the Mass Rapid Transit System any road or drainage proposal or government acquisition or scheme or intended government acquisition or scheme then the purchaser shall be at liberty to rescind this agreement by giving the vendor written notice in that behalf within fourteen (14) days from the receipt of all such replies and upon such notice being given, this agreement shall be null and void in which event the vendor shall forthwith refund to the purchaser all moneys paid by him but without any interest compensation or deductions whatsoever and thereupon neither party shall then have any claim or demand against the other for costs damages compensation or otherwise.

Provided always that:

(i) no replies to legal requisitions shall be deemed to be unsatisfactory unless the vendor refuses or is not able to comply with same by the date fixed for completion;

(ii) any replies to legal requisition or plan indicating that the said property will be affected by road or drainage proposal or government acquisition or scheme arising from a redevelopment of the said property shall not be deemed to be unsatisfactory; and

(iii) if the purchaser fails to exercise his right of rescission within the aforesaid stipulated period of fourteen (14) days then the purchaser shall be deemed to have waived such right; and ...



It is not in dispute that the property is residential property and that it is zoned in the master plan as `residential`.
There is also no dispute as to the other material facts save for the purpose the purchasers are said to have purchased the property.

The vendors in their affidavit filed on 12 April 1990 stated:

Sometime towards the end of 1988, we were approached by the defendants (the purchasers), who were monks, to sell the said property to them as they informed us that they had intention of constructing a temple on the said property.



Based on this simple assertion the vendors` counsel has argued, and it is her basis for the construction and application of cl 9 of the said agreement, that the purpose of the purchase was for redevelopment either immediately or in the immediate future and not for its existing use as a dwelling house or other permitted use of the existing dwelling house.


The purchasers by the first defendant`s affidavit filed on 23 May 1990 disputed this and contended that their intention was always to make use of the building as a meeting place and that they had no immediate plans or indeed any future plans to construct a building for the said meeting place.
The present building they contended was sufficient for their existing needs. They further contended that even if they had any intention to construct a building for the said meeting place some time in the future they were constrained by their limited...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ang Boh Seng and Others v Ang Kok Kuan
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 Septiembre 1992
    ...SLR (R) 163; [1982-1983] SLR 464 (refd) Wong Lee Sing v Mansor [1972] 2 MLJ 154 (folld) Wong Meng Yuen Eddie v Soh Chee Kong [1990] 1 SLR (R) 652; [1990] SLR 664 (folld) Joseph Chellapan (W T Woon and Co) for the plaintiffs Bannir Chelvam (Bannir and Associates) for the defendant. K S Rajah......
  • Ang Kok Kuan v Ang Boh Seng and Others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 20 Agosto 1993
    ... ... the plaintiffs to find for themselves another lawyer.On 5 December 1983, the plaintiffs engaged ... held that the reply was not satisfactory.In Wong Meng Yuen Eddie v Soh Chee Kong 4 it was ... ...
  • Tay Theng Khoon and Another v Lee Kim Tah (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 Marzo 1992
    ... ... Swee Eng Heng [1988] 1 MLJ 227 and Wong Meng Yuen Eddie & Anor v Soh Chee Kong & Ors ... ...
  • Kua Beng Koon and Another v Kwok Wai Tien and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 Mayo 1993
    ... ... clause and similar arguments in the case of Wong Meng Yuen Eddie & Anor v Soh Chee Kong & Ors ... In ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Land Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 Diciembre 2007
    ...reserve and its effect on the existing building were substantial. Prakash J referred to two cases, Wong Meng Yuen Eddie v Soh Chee Kong[1990] SLR 664 and Seet Peng Yam v Mohamed Mohidin Habibullah[1988] SLR 334, where the land area affected by road reserves had been significantly less, name......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT