Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2530
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KOTA KINABALU
TAN SRI KASITAH GADDAM – Appellant
Versus
KALIMIN SAHADI & ORS – Respondent
[Case No: BKI-22NCvC-75/10-2020]
The court ruled that a sale and purchase agreement was void due to the vendor's illiteracy and the expired lease, and the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 – Sections 30, 101, and 103 – Limitation Ordinance – The plaintiff claimed ownership of land based on a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) executed when the lease had lapsed. The court found that the deceased vendor was illiterate and could not have executed the SPA, PA, and MOT. The court ruled that the SPA was void for uncertainty and that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. (Paras 90, 91, 106, 127)
(B) Ownership Disputes – The court emphasized the importance of contemporaneous documents and the conduct of parties in determining ownership claims. The plaintiff's failure to lodge a caveat and the inconsistencies in his evidence undermined his claim. (Paras 19, 20, 70, 127)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff alleged he purchased land from the deceased, but the lease had expired, and the deceased's children contested the claim, asserting their father could not have sold the land due to illiteracy and the lease's status. (Paras 2, 21, 90)
Findings of Court: The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership due to the deceased's illiteracy and the void nature of the SPA. The defendants' counterclaim for trespass was allowed with nominal damages. (Paras 127, 132)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the SPA, the deceased's capacity to execute documents, and the applicability of limitation periods. (Paras 2, 106)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the SPA was void due to the deceased's illiteracy and the expired lease, and the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. (Paras 127, 132)
Result: The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim was allowed with nominal damages.
JUDGMENT
The Parties, And Nature Of Dispute
[1] The subject matter in dispute is a parcel of land measuring 114.40 acres held under Country Lease 065311220 situate at Kampung Nalapak in Ranau, Sabah ("the land").
[2] The core issue is whether the plaintiff, a retired politician from Ranau, had acquired the land from the original registered owner Sahadi bin Dungoi under a sale and purchase agreement dated 30 October 2002 ("the SPA") so as to defeat the defendants' re-reamended counterclaim that the plaintiff had trespassed onto the land by reason of which they sought damages.
[3] The lease for the land had lapsed at the time the SPA was executed.
[4] On 26 March 2004, the said Sahadi passed away. See Statement of Agreed Facts ("SAF"), paragraph 2.
[5] The 9 defendants are the deceased's children.
[6] The defendants had the title deed for the land. It was found in the deceased's drawer. The plaintiff's explanation was that the title deed remained with the deceased who bore the responsibility to renew the lease.
[7] The defendants applied for and obtained a Distribution Order (Perintah Pembahagian Tanah") from the Syariah Lower Court dated 14 January 2009.
[8] The lease for the land was renewed by the Director of Lands and Surveys vide a letter dated 5 February 2013 for a term of 99 years with effect from January 2012. The 1st defendant paid the premium amounting to RM57,000.00 and the registration fee of RM50.00. See SAF, paras 3 and 4.
[9] The Perintah Pembahagian Tanah was endorsed on the title deed by the Director of Lands and Surveys on 7 April 2014. See SAF, para 6.
[10] In 2015, the plaintiff started proceedings in the Syariah High Court which in due course ordered the Syariah Lower Court, in December 2017, to rehear the application for administration and distribution, and for the dispute over the ownership of the land to be referred to a civil Court.
[11] On 1 October 2020, the plaintiff filed the action herein against the 9 defendants.
[12] The plaintiff averred that he had first paid the deceased RM30,000.00 as "pendahuluan harga jualan tanah CL 065311220 Kg Nalapak Ranau," and then RM60,000.00 as llpart payment of the purchase price of land held under CL 065311220."
[13] He referred to the receipts dated 29 September 1999 and 27 October 1999. See CBOD Part B, Vol 2, pp 1 and 2.
[14] These receipts were prepared by one Azman Nasir (PW2), a solicitor with Messrs Sia Mojilip & Nasir.
[15] PW2 subsequently prepared the SPA dated 30 October 2002 and a power of attorney ("PA") on the same day. By the PA, the late Sahadi purportedly conferred on the plaintiff wide-ranging powers, including power to accept letters of offer and to sign for draft titles and issued titles and to pay the premium and registration fee. The PA also empowered the plaintiff to apply to the Director of Lands and Surveys for changes in the terms and conditions, as well as permission for 1 transfer of the land before fulfilment of the covenants. The PA was provided for consideration in the sum of RM30.00 and was expressed to be irrevocable. The PA was registered with the Magistrates' Court in Ranau on 1 November 2002.
[16] PW2 then prepared a memorandum of transfer ("MOT") for the land from the deceased to the plaintiff.
[17] PW2 gave evidence that he attested the signatures of the plaintiff and the deceased on the SPA, PA and MOT.
[18] The plaintiff sought declarations and gave evidence that he had purchased the land from the said Sahadi vide the SPA which he claimed to be binding on the defendants. He also sought an order for the transfer of the land to the defendants vide memorial number MC1404080019 be cancelled forthwith.
[19] In cases such as this, where there is a dispute as to whether one party has validly purchased the subject property and whether he is entitled to be the registered proprietor, there are a few common factors, by no means exhaustive, that will determine the outcome. Commonly, the Court will scrutinize the contemporaneous documents (su
