KHO  &  PARTNERS ADVOCATES 

Kho & Partners Advocates is an integrated law firm providing a wide spectrum of services. Seeking to understand the structure, technologies and key players and issues in the sectors relevant to their specialization and have an up-to-date knowledge of the legal and regulatory framework in Malaysia. They are dedicated towards providing advisory and advocacy services in a wide variety of land rights, commercial, corporate, civil litigations.

The firm aims to provide quality of legal services that adhere to the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. It is committed to provide excellent legal services to their clients drawing on collective experience, expertise and resources.

简历

Kho & Partners Advocates 的管理合伙人。我们的管理合伙人被描述为自信、勤奋且有魅力的律师，具有出色的口头和书面沟通技能；他保持着逻辑清晰地思考和处理信息的能力。他对法律有着深刻的理解，并力求尽其所能为客户提供法律咨询。他对砂劳越土地法律与砂劳越土地法典特别是关于土地注册、当前砂劳越政府的实践和政策保持着浓厚的兴趣。

他对家庭法充满热情，并处理过一些著名的婚姻纠纷。他还具有合同与保险法以及过失法的广泛知识，曾有保险理赔调整师的工作经验。

他于2008年创立了Kho & Partners Advocates 律师事务所，并从那时起一直从事法律实践。该事务所是一家综合性律师事务所，提供广泛的服务。力求了解与其专业领域相关的结构、技术以及关键参与者和问题，并且对马来西亚的法律和监管框架有最新的知识。他们致力于在土地权利、商 ;业、公司、民事诉讼等多个领域提供咨询和辩护服务。

该事务所旨在提供符合最高诚信和专业标准的法律服务质量。它致力于利用集体的经验、专业知识和资源为客户提供卓越的法律服务。

Precedent cases

里程碑案例

Our firm has been instrumental in the following reported cases;

我们的事务所在以下案件中发挥了重要作用 ;

QUI SU LAM & ORS v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAND AND SURVEYS BETONG DIVISION [2018] 

COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA [2018] 10 CLJ 718 [2018] 1 LNS 475

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Award of compensation - Inadequacy of compensation - Compensation for building erected on land - Whether land use was specifically for agriculture - Whether building an illegal structure - Whether Sarawak Land Code prohibits erection of building on agricultural land - Whether use of building fell within ambit of s. 39A(1) and (2) of Sarawak Land Code - Whether appellants entitled to adequate compensation

Legislation referred to;

Sarawak Land Code, ss. 39A (1), (2), 48, 56(1), 60, 61

Building Ordinance 1994, ss. 1(1), 2, 3, 8, 63(a), First Schedule, Second Schedule, Third Schedule

Federal Constitution, art. 13

土地法：土地收购 - 赔偿金的判定 - 赔偿金的不足 - 对土地上建筑的赔偿 - 土地使用是否专门用于农业 - 建筑是否为非法结构 - 砂拉越土地法典是否禁止在农业用地上建造建筑 - 建筑的使用是否属于砂拉越土地法典第39A(1)条和(2)条规定的范围内 - 上诉人是否有权获得足够的赔偿

参考法规：

Sarawak Land Code, ss. 39A (1), (2), 48, 56(1), 60, 61

Building Ordinance 1994, ss. 1(1), 2, 3, 8, 63(a), First Schedule, Second Schedule, Third Schedule

Federal Constitution, art. 13

TH PELITA SADONG SDN BHD & ANOR v. TR NYUTAN JAMI & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS [2018] 1 CLJ 19

NATIVE LAW AND CUSTOM: Land dispute - Claim of native customary rights over land - Whether statutory provisions under s. 132 of Sarawak Land Code pertaining to indefeasibility of title remain applicable - Whether indefeasibility of title prevailed over claim of native customary rights - Whether rights of leaseholders, proprietors and chargee over land could be defeated by claim of native customary rights

LAND LAW: Customary land - Claim of native customary rights over land - Whether statutory provisions under s. 132 of Sarawak Land Code pertaining to indefeasibility of title remain applicable - Whether indefeasibility of title over land prevailed over native customary rights - Whether rights of leaseholders, proprietors and chargee over land could be defeated by claim of native customary rights

LAND LAW: Customary land - Alienation - Whether alienation of lands has effect of extinguishing or infringing native customary rights - Whether payment of compensation has to be made to affected natives - Proper remedy for infringement of native customary rights - Whether award of compensation ought to be ordered in favour of claimants pursuant to ss. 15 and 197 of Sarawak Land Code

LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title and interests - Land dispute - Claim of native customary rights over land - Whether statutory provisions under s. 132 of Sarawak Land Code pertaining to indefeasibility of title remain applicable - Whether indefeasibility of title prevailed over claim of native customary rights - Whether rights of leaseholders, proprietors and chargee over land could be defeated by claim of native customary rights

土著法律与习俗：土地争议 - 对土地的土著习惯权利主张 - 砂拉越土地法典第132条下的法定规定关于所有权的不可争议性是否仍然适用 - 所有权的不可争议性是否凌驾于土著习惯权利的主张之上 - 土地上的租赁权人、所有者和抵押权人的权利是否可能被土著习惯权利的主张所击败

土地法：习惯土地 - 对土地的土著习惯权利主张 - 砂拉越土地法典第132条下的法定规定关于所有权的不可争议性是否仍然适用 - 土地所有权的不可争议性是否凌驾于土著习惯权利之上 - 土地上的租赁权人、所有者和抵押权人的权利是否可能被土著习惯权利的主张所击败

土地法：习惯土地 - 土地的转让 - 土地的转让是否具有消灭或侵犯土著习惯权利的效果 - 是否必须向受影响的土著居民支付赔偿金 - 侵犯土著习惯权利的适当补救方法 - 是否应根据砂拉越土地法典第15条和第197条，下令赔偿金判给索赔人

土地法：所有权和权益的不可争议性 - 土地争议 - 对土地的土著习惯权利主张 - 砂拉越土地法典第132条下的法定规定关于所有权的不可争议性是否仍然适用 - 所有权的不可争议性是否凌驾于土著习惯权利的主张之上 - 土地上的租赁权人、所有者和抵押权人的权利是否可能被土著习惯权利的主张所击败

THU NYONG KIUM & ORS v. THU NYONG HEN & ORS  [2017] 1 LNS 51

LIMITATION: Accrual of cause of action - Cause of action founded upon distributive share of assets from an intestacy - Whether cause of action runs from date shares became payable - Whether time starts to run from date of issuance of letters of administration - Limitation Ordinance, item 99

"时效限制：诉因的累积 - 基于无遗嘱继承中资产分配份额的诉因 - 诉因是否从份额应支付之日开始计算 - 时间是否从发放管理信函的日期开始计算 - 限制条例，第99项"

MICHEAL TEO YU KENG & ORS v. MIRI CITY COUNCIL & ORS [2016] 2 CLJ 654

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Removal of car park - Decision of City Council to remove car park - Allegation that removal would severely affect applicants' business - Application for judicial review against decision of city council - Whether applicants had any proprietary rights over car park - Whether applicants suffered losses or damages arising from removal of car park - Whether there was invasion or threatened invasion of applicants' legal rights - Whether applicants' constitutional rights would be infringed

LIMITATION: Commencement of action - Judicial review - Decision of City Council to remove car park - Allegation that removal would severely affect applicants' business - Whether application for judicial review filed within time - When time starts to run - Whether 'when the grounds of application first arose' or 'when the decision is first communicated' - Whether announcement in newspapers admissible evidence - Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC'), O. 53 r. 3(6)

行政法：司法审查 - 停车场的移除 - 市议会决定移除停车场 - 主张移除将严重影响申请人的业务 - 对市议会决定提起司法审查的申请 - 申请人是否对停车场拥有任何所有权 - 申请人是否因移除停车场而遭受损失或损害 - 是否存在对申请人法律权利的侵犯或威胁性侵犯 - 申请人的宪法权利是否会受到侵犯

时效：诉讼的开始 - 司法审查 - 市议会决定移除停车场 - 主张移除将严重影响申请人的业务 - 是否在规定时间内提出司法审查申请 - 时间从何时开始计算 - 是从“申请的理由首次出现时”还是从“决定首次被传达时”开始 - 报纸上的公告是否为可接受的证据 - 2012年法庭规则（“ROC”），O. 53 r. 3(6)

PENGERUSI SURUHANJAYA PILIHANRAYA MALAYSIA v. SEE CHEE HOW & ANOR [2015] 8 CLJ 367

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Election - State Constituency, Sarawak - Review of division of Federal and State Constituencies for purpose of election by election commission - Publication of notice on proposed recommendations - Whether notice provided enough particulars of proposed recommendations - Whether notice defective in law and liable to be set aside 

"宪法法：选举 - 砂拉越州选区 - 选举委员会出于选举目的对联邦和州选区划分的审查 - 公布有关建议建议的通知 - 该通知是否提供了建议建议的足够细节 - 该通知在法律上是否存在缺陷，是否应被撤销