UMLand challenges seizure of 192 plots tied to demerger dispute with Syed Mokhtar's firms

KUALA LUMPUR (July 21): Four subsidiaries of United Malayan Land Bhd (UMLand) have filed a judicial review to challenge the seizure of 192 Johor Bahru land lots linked to a dispute involving Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary’s companies over a 2021 demerger exercise.

The judicial review application was filed on July 10, 2026, by Messrs Law Chambers of Zander Lim on behalf of the four companies: Tentu Teguh Sdn Bhd, Viridea Lakeside Sdn Bhd, Exquisite Mode Sdn Bhd and UMLand Medini Lakeside Development Sdn Bhd.

The companies named the attorney general, a deputy public prosecutor of anti-money laundering and criminal forfeiture Wan Ahmad Hakimi Wan Ahmad Jaafar, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Khalid Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police Datuk Fazlisyam Abd Majid, investigating officer Inspector Mohd Rozimi Mustapha and the Malaysian government as respondents.

The matter is fixed for case management on Aug 4 before High Court Judge Datuk Azizan Md Arshad.

In an affidavit supporting the application affirmed by UMLand’s group corporate legal representative Jenni Teh, she said the seizure order was related to a 2021 demerger exercise.

Before the demerger, Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary’s companies — Seleksi Juang Sdn Bhd (SJ) and Wawasan Perangsang Mewah Sdn Bhd (WPM) — owned 78.25% of UMLand while the remaining stake was held by Datuk Ng Eng Tee’s group.

Under the demerger agreement signed on June 8, 2021, Datuk Ng’s group was set to increase its ownership to 50% while Syed Mokhtar’s stake would be reduced to 50%.

To facilitate the ownership change, Ng’s group was required to ensure UMLand subsidiaries transferred 618 land lots in Bandar Seri Alam to WPM free from any charges or encumbrances. Meanwhile, Syed Mokhtar would cancel his UMLand shares held through SJ and WPM, allowing Ng’s group to take control of UMLand.

Several supplementary agreements were later signed between June 2021 and April 11, 2026, to amend the original demerger terms.

Syed Mokhtar-linked company’s police report on Nov 20, 2025, led to asset freezes

Teh claimed that on Nov 20, 2025, a director of WPM lodged a police report at the Sentul police station, alleging that Datuk Ng had failed to fulfil his obligations under the demerger agreement.

“When the report was lodged, the Datuk Ng group had already completed the transfer of 617 out of 618 land lots to WPM. Only one lot, namely Lot PTD 111515, had yet to be transferred, although various steps had been taken since November 2025 to complete the transfer,” she said.

Following this, Teh claimed that the authorities froze the Datuk Ng group’s bank accounts in February 2026, along with other assets including PTD 111515.

The affected assets also included 192 land lots owned by UMLand subsidiaries — Tentu Teguh (32 lots), Viridea Lakeside (three lots), Exquisite Mode (156 lots) and UMLand Medini (one lot) — which were placed under a freezing order from Feb 27, 2026.

UMLand sent several letters to the Attorney General’s Chambers and, on May 21, 2026, the freeze order on the bank accounts was lifted. However, the freeze order on the land assets remained in place.

On May 25, 2026, Deputy Public Prosecutor Wan Ahmad Hakimi Wan Ahmad Jaafar issued a seizure order on the immovable assets.

Teh claimed that UMLand had submitted several representations to the Attorney General Chambers anti-money laundering unit head Sulaiman Kho Kheng Fuei arguing that there was no link or basis for the government to seek seizure of the 192 land lots unrelated to the demerger exercise.

However, the company received no response until July 3, 2026, when Sulaiman replied that the representations could not be considered until police investigations were completed.

Some affected land parcels had ongoing housing projects before the seizure, prompting UMLand to receive legal letters from housebuyers.

UMLand has filed a judicial review application where it sought leave for certiorari (to quash) the seizure order dated May 25, 2026, and seek the release of the affected lands, along with costs and other relief from the court.

In judicial review cases, the applicant must first obtain the court’s permission before the case can proceed to a full hearing. This ensures the application has valid grounds and is not an abuse of the court process.

..........

Read about emerging trends, data-backed insights, growing subsectors, and expert commentaries in EdgeProp print. Subscribe now for your free copy!