SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 MarsdenLR 1887

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK MIRI
RANGGONG JENAU & ORS – Appellant
Versus
BLD RESOURCES SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: MYY-21-3/3-2012 & MYY-22-3/3-2012]



The court ruled that the burden to prove Native Customary Rights lies with the plaintiffs, and they failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims, resulting in dismissal of their suit.

Headnote:(A) Sarawak Land Code - Section 2, Section 5(1), Section 10, Section 28 - Native customary rights (NCR) - Plaintiffs claimed NCR over Lot 91 Sawai Land District; Defendants disputed the existence of NCR, asserting Lot 91 is state land - The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiffs to establish their claims of NCR and its subsistence at the relevant time. (Paras 11, 12, 55)

(B) Claims of NCR and evidentiary requirements - The court ruled that bare assertions without cogent evidence do not satisfy the burden of proof for NCR claims, nor do documents lacking official validation. (Paras 12, 26, 29, 34)

(C) Authority and process for land alienation - The provisional lease issued to the 1st Defendant was lawful and did not infringe on any rights of the Plaintiffs, who failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation in relation to land allotment or alienation procedures. (Paras 54, 55).

Facts of the case:
Two suits were filed regarding a dispute over Lot 91, with Plaintiffs claiming native customary rights to the land, while Defendants asserted lawful ownership and occupation. The suits were joint-trial proceedings in which evidence was presented about the history and demarcation of NCR.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims of NCR, ruling they had not proven their rights to the land nor provided credible evidence of customary ownership.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiffs have acquired NCR over Lot 91; whether their claims were substantiated by sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found inadequate evidence presented to meet the legal burden of proof required to establish NCR and ruled that no prior valid claim existed over Lot 91.

Result: Claims dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Table of Content
1. joint trials of suits regarding ncr land. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 7)
2. disputes over land ownership and rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 8)
3. requirements for proving ncr land status. (Para 6 , 10 , 19 , 20 , 28)
4. the necessity of credible evidence for ncr claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 38 , 39)
5. lack of legal basis for ncr claims. (Para 49 , 50)
6. dismissal of claims with costs awarded. (Para 54 , 55)

[1] These two suits were originally filed in the High Court at Kuching, registered as Suit 21-02-2009-II and Suit 22-185-2008-II respectively. By consent of the parties the two suits were set down for joint-trial which had commenced. Subsequently the two suits were transferred from the Kuching High Court and registered in the High Court at Miri because the parcel of land described as Lot 91 Sawai Land District and an area of land claimed by the Plaintiffs as their communal native customary rights (NCR) land, which are the subject matters of these suits, are situated within the jurisdiction of Miri High Court. The Plaintiffs and the witnesses are also from Miri.

[2] The parties agreed that the two suits be jointly tried de novo in the High Court, Miri. The parties agreed that all the documents filed for the trial were deemed to be in dispute unless otherwise agreed during the trial. In these two suits, the Plaintiffs in Suit MYY-21-3/3-2012 shall be referred to as the Plaintiffs, BLD Resources Sdn Bhd shall be referred to as the 1st Defendant, the Superintendent of the Lands & Surveys, Miri Division, shall be referred to as the 2nd Defendant and the Government of the State of Sarawak shall be referred to as the 3rd Defendant.

[3] In Suit MYY-22-3/3-2012, which was originally filed in 2008 in Kuching High Court, the 1st Defendant is the registered owner of Lot 91 Sawai Land District (referred to as Lot 91) containing an area of approximately 1,803 hectares situated at Sungai Niah, Niah. The 1st Defendant sued Changgai Anak Dali (PW17) and pleaded that PW17 had unlawfully trespassed and occupied Lot 91 and carried out works to clear a portion of the land for unlawful plantation activities. The 1st Defendant had demanded PW17 to cease his unlawful activities and to vacate the land but that PW17 had willfully failed and refused to do so.

[4] The 1st Defendant pleaded that due to the trespass and unlawful occupation of the land by PW17, it was unable to commence field planting within two years from the date of the issue of the provisional lease, which two year period had expired on 5 January 2007, and that the 1st Defendant had suffered loss and damages. The 1st Defendant claimed damages and an injunction against PW17.

[5] In Suit MYY-21-3/3-2012, which was originally filed in 2009 in Kuching, the Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves as well as on behalf of all the residents of the longhouse known as Rumah Ranggong in Sungai Sah, Ulu Sungai Niah, Niah, Miri Division, Sarawak against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The Plaintiffs pleaded that they are Iban and natives of Sarawak. The Plaintiffs however did not set out how many bilik or residents resided at Rh Ranggong and did not exhibit a list of the residents of the longhouse who were or are included as the Plaintiffs in this suit.

[6] The Plaintiffs pleaded that their ancestors have lawfully acquired communal and or individual native customary rights (NCR) land at Sungai Sah and that they have inherited and acquired the NCR land. They pleaded that the location and boundary of their NCR land is edged in red in the map which is marked as 'B' and attached to their Statement of Claim (ID7).

[7] The Plaintiffs pleaded that on 5 January 2005 the 2nd Defendant issued the provisional lease described as Lot 91 to the 1st Defendant over their NCR land. The Plaintiffs pleaded that the issuance of the provisional lease was wrongful and in disregard of the Plaintiffs' NCR acquired and subsisting in or over the parcel of land.

[8] The Plaintiffs inter alia prayed for a declaration that their ancestors o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top