1988 MarsdenLR 1206
SUPREME COURT (KUCHING)
SALLEH ABAS LP, J, SEAH, J & HASHIM YEOP A SANI, SCJJ
HAJI LAUGAN TARKI BIN MOHD NOOR
versus
MAHKAMAH ANAK NEGERI PENAMPANG
CIVIL APPEAL NO 27 OF 1988
Decided On : 02-11-88
Sugumar Balakrishnan for the appellant.
Stephen Foo Kiah Shin (State Attorney-General, Sabah) (A Juprin with him) for the respondent.
Solicitors: Sugumar & Co.
(delivering the grounds of decision of the court): This was an appeal against the refusal by the learned judge of the High Court, Kota Kinabalu for leave under Order 53 rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Penampang Native Court made on 22 January 1988. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Penampang Native Court to one month's imprisonment for the offence of "slander" or making false and defamatory allegations against the complainant, one James Ligunjang. We allowed the appeal, granted leave and considered the merits and at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal we quashed the said decision of the Penampang Native Court and set aside the conviction and sentence. We now give our reasons.
First, the background facts. On 3 December 1987, the appellant who was a former district chief of Tuaran (and during his tenure as district chief also presided over the Tuaran Native Court) lodged a police report for alleged abuse of public office and funds by the said James Ligunjang during the latter's tenure as chairman and, later, general manager of the Sabah Tourism Promotion Corporation. The details of this report somehow found its way into the Sabah Times dated 4 December 1987 where it was alleged that the said James Ligunjang had illicit sexual relationships with two models in London and Sydney. There is no evidence, however, that the appellant was responsible for the publication of the said materials in the Sabah Times.
On 31 December 1987, the said Mr. James Ligunjang lodged a complaint with the Penampang Native Court that the appellant had made a false report against him in the local newspaper on 4 December 1987. This is in reference to the same report referred to earlier. The Penampang Native Court took cognizance of the offence of "slander" and issued a summons against the appellant. A copy of the summons appeared as "A"42 in the appeal record and the charge in the summons is referred to as "Tuduhan palsu. (Fitnah)". The summons was dated 31 December 1987. On the first date of hearing (7 January 1988), the appellant did not turn up because of illness but appeared subsequently before the Native Court on 22 January 1988.
In the meantime, it would appear that other developments were also taking place as a result of the police report lodged by the appellant referred to earlier. The police carried out investigations and on 15 January 1988 arrested the appellant. The appellant was released on police bail on the following day and was, according to him, waiting to be formally charged under section 182 of the Penal Code.
According to the record of the proceeding before the Penampang Native Court ("DJM-4") the court was presided by one Datuk O.K.K. Jintol Mogunting with two other members. The proceeding commenced with the statement by the complainant, James Ligunjang, who referred to the allegation made in the said newspaper report published on 4 December 1987. He said that his name had been adversely affected in Sabah, Malaysia and throughout the world and asked the Native Court for relief.
From the record of the proceeding, it would appear that right from the commencement of proceeding the appellant disputed the jurisdiction of the Native Court in respect of the alleged offence. In fact, he reiterated throughout the proceeding that he was not submitting to jurisdiction but merely appeared as a sign of respect to the Native Court. He admitted lodging the police report but denied publishing the materials in the newspaper. He also stated that the Anti-Corruption Agency was still investigating on his report on the alleged misuse of public funds.
At the conclusion of the hearing before the Native Court, it was recorded in the notes of the proceeding that the Native Court then examined the international passport of the complainant and was satisfied that the complainant did not visit either of the countries referred to in the newspaper report at