Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2593
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
NOR ANAK NYAWAI & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TATAU LAND SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: Q-02-2167-09-2012]
The doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' claim regarding native customary rights as their previous action concerning the same land had been adjudicated, confirming the validity of the possession order.
Headnote:(A) Native Customary Rights - Res Judicata - Rules of the High Court 1980 - The plaintiffs appealed against the striking out of their writ and claim regarding their native customary rights over Lot 16, Bintulu. The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior judgment regarding the same property - The valid possession order obtained by the 1st defendant rendered the current action untenable. (Paras 1, 16, 26)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court concluded that the resolution of the previous possession order was sufficient to dismiss the current appeal. It found no procedural misstep that would invalidate the prior adjudication, confirming the importance of prior judgments in civil proceedings. (Paras 18, 25)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought declarations against the 1st defendant’s lease issuance, claiming it unlawfully impaired their native rights. They had previously litigated the same land in a separate suit, which concluded with a possession order favoring the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were unsubstantiated under the doctrine of res judicata due to a valid possession order.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' action is res judicata and whether they were entitled to remedies concerning the same land previously adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims regarding the same land issue were precluded due to the earlier court's judgment establishing the 1st defendant's legitimacy over the property, thus confirming the principles of res judicata.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
[1] This is the plaintiffs' appeal against the decision of the Bintulu High Court in allowing the 1st defendant's application to strike out the plaintiffs' writ of summons and statement of claim. For ease of reference, in this judgment, parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.
[2] The background facts relevant to the appeal are as follows. The dispute concerns Lot 16, Block 3, Sangan Land District, Bintulu. Vide the present action, the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other occupiers, holders and claimants of Native Customary Right (NCR) Land at Sungai Sekabai, Sungai Tajem, Tatau, Bintulu, Sarawak, claimed against the defendants, inter alia for a declaration that the issuance of the provisional lease by the 2nd and/ or the 3rd defendants to the 1st defendant is unlawful and null and void as it impairs the plaintiffs' NCR and for a prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st defendant and/or their employees servants and/or agents from trespassing, clearing, using or occupying and commencing their development project on the plaintiffs' NCR land.
[3] In 1999, the same plaintiffs herein had commenced an action against Borneo Pulp Plantations Sdn Bhd; Bornoe Pulp & Paper Sdn Bhd and the Superintendent of Lands and Surveys Bintulu in Kuching (Suit No: 22-28-99-1) (the first suit). In the first suit, the plaintiffs had claimed NCR over the same lands as claimed by the plaintiffs in the present suit which are Rumah Luang/ Rumah Nor in Sungai Sekabai, Sungai Tajem and Sungai Ipuh, Sebauh, Bintulu Division, Sarawak (see para 3(a) of the statement of claim in the first suit, p 58: RR1(A) and p 116 RR 11 (B&C). The area that the plaintiffs claimed in the first suit was more particularly set out in the map marked "A" and edged in red which was annexed to the statement of claim therein.
[4] On 12 May 2001, the High Court, Kuching gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the first suit. Justice Ian Chin made an order, inter alia:
"(d) the disputed area is to be reckoned by reference to the map admitted in evidence during the trial as exh P172 following as closely as possible the boundary of the disputed area that has been marked on the map."
[5] By reference to exh P172 in the first suit, Lot 16 clearly falls outside the boundary of the area which the plaintiffs claimed to have acquired NCR.
[6] Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the defendants in the first suit appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeals No: Q-01-42-2001 & Q-20-504- 2001). On 8 July 2005, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The plaintiffs' application for leave to the Federal Court was dismissed.
[7] On 18 December 2008, the 1st defendant in the present action filed an Originating Summons No: 24-74-2008 (the OS) seeking to recover possession of Lot 16 under O 89 of the Rules of the High 1980. The plaintiffs in the OS were "The Persons in Occupation of Lot 16, Block 3 Sangan Land District, Ulu Tatau, Bintulu Division, Sarawak."
[8] The 4th plaintiff on behalf of himself and all the persons in occupation of Lot 16, opposed the OS. However, the affidavit in opposition of the fourth plaintiff was objected to by learned counsel for the 1st defendant on the ground of non-compliance with O 89 r 5 of the Rules of the High 1980 which provides:
"Without prejudice to O 15, rr 6 and 10, any person not named as a defendant who is in occupation of the land and wishes to be heard on the question whether an order for possession should be made may apply at any stage of the proceedings to be joined as a defendant."
[9] As the fourth plaintiff was not named as a defendant in the OS, it was submitted by learned counsel for the 1st defendant, inter alia, that the 4th plaintiff must make a proper application to be joined as a defendant, which the 4th plaintiff had failed to do (pp 149-154 ROA II (Pt B&C)).
