The court upheld that a party cannot transfer rights they do not possess, reinforcing the nemo dat quod non habet principle.

Table of Content
1. procedural applications for fresh evidence. (Para 14)
2. arguments presented by both sides and legal standing of the appellant. (Para 15 , 20 , 27)
3. legal conclusions drawn regarding the appellant's claims and titles. (Para 16 , 23)
4. court's evaluation of evidence and its implications on ownership. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25)
5. principle regarding transfer of interest in land. (Para 26)
6. review of appeal's merit and trial court findings. (Para 28 , 29 , 31 , 32)
7. final dismissal of the appeal and reaffirmation of the lower court's decision. (Para 30)

(a) the Judgment in Default of Appearance ("JID") (O 13 r 6 of Rules of 2012) entered against the 1st defendant in the Counterclaim on 4 January 2016;

(b) a news article published by the Daily Express under Vol 131 KK on Saturday 14 May 2016 under the heading/title of "LAND BID CANCELLED" and the continuation under the heading "ISU TANAH DI KG LAYON SELESAI: PEGAWAI DAERAH";

(c) the Writ of Summons dated 24 April 2012 together with the Statement of Claim dated 24 April 2012 of the Suit No: SDK-22-18-4-2012 between Lim Fong Tsin and 60 others and the Director of Lands and Surveys Department and State Government of Sabah (Lim Fong Tsins 2012 Suit);

(d) the Judgment after trial by the High Court Judge dismissing the said Lim Fong Tsins 2012 Suit;

(e) the appeal against the dismissal of the said Lim Fong Tsins 2012 Suit by Messrs Tan Pang Tsen & Co under Civil Appeal No: S 01 (W)-122-04-2015 and its subsequent dismissal by the Court of Appeal;

(f) the Sale and Purchase Agreement executed on 6 May 1985 between SP and Hassnar;

(g) Hassnars Notice to Ghazali B Salleh NRIC 760825125417, the biological son of late Salleh bin Khinson (the deceased person) demanding the same to apply to the Syariah Court to bequeath and or transfer ownership of a piece of land successfully applied by the deceased person vide PT 81081893 and or more particularly described as Lot No 50 Block 3 Luang Manis Small Holders Scheme Phase II district of Labuk and Sugut (Lot 50) which was sold to Hassnar; and

(h) the application by Ghazali B Salleh NRIC 760825-12-5417, the biological son of the deceased person for an order that the ownership of the said Lot 50 be bequeathed and/or transferred to Hassnars daughter.

[14] After hearing submissions by all parties, we had dismissed encl 10a as we were not convinced by Hassnar that he had fulfilled the elements as required to be satisfied in the case of Ladd v. Marshall Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, in relation to adducing of fresh evidence to be introduced in the hearing of an appeal. In other words, they were available during trial thereby negating qualification as fresh evidence. Indeed, one of them was sought to be adduced during trial but was rejected by the learned trial judge, against whose order there had been no appeal. We had also rejected the introduction of some of the intended documents as they were hearsay and irrelevant to this appeal.

[15] We then proceeded to hear parties submit on the main appeal. Based on the oral and written submissions of Hassnar before us, it was clear that the main issues were the same issues that were raised by him in the High Court before the learned trial judge. We would list down the said issues, as follows:

a. Whether SP had lawfully surrendered his letter of offer as per the SD;

b. Whether Hassnar had acquired a beneficial and legal interest over the said land from SP;

c. Whether Hassnar had the locus standi to maintain the counterclaim against the respondents in this appeal;

d. Whether Hassnar could challenge the 6th respondents discretion under s 9 of the Sabah Land Ordinance to alienate land and failure to refer the matter to the Land Utilisation Committee;

e. Whether, on a balance of probabilities, Hassnar has proven collusion and conspiracy to defraud Hassnar as per the counterclaim;

f. Whether Hassnars counterclaim is time-barred;

g. Whether the parties are entitled to aggravated damages, be it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document