JUDGMENT

Samry Masri JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Defendants/Appellants against my decision delivered on 1st of October 2025, whereby l allowed the Plaintiff/Respondent's application for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of 2012.

[2] The central issue before me was whether the Defendants had raised any bona fide triable issue to defeat the Plaintiff's claim founded upon its registered title to the land.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the land held under individual title H.S.(D) 4572, Lot 6881, Mukim Rompin, Daerah Rompin, State of Pahang Darul Makmur (hereinafter referred to as "the said Land").

[4] The First Defendant is a cooperative established on 15th. of July 2011 and registered with the Malaysia Cooperative Societies Commission as a basic cooperative with limited liability under subsection 7(1) of the Co-Operative Societies Act 1993. Its registered service address is at Kampung Orang Asli Tanam, Kuala Rompin, 26800 Rompin, State of Pahang Darul Makmur (hereinafter referred to as "the said Village").

[5] The Second Defendant is an office bearer and/or the Chairperson of the First Defendant, responsible for managing the affairs of the First Defendant and overseeing the welfare and supervision of its members and the residents of the said Village.

[6] The Third Defendant is also an office bearer of the First Defendant and serves as the Village Chief (Ketua Kampung) of Kampung Orang Asli Tanam, Rompin. The Third Defendant, also known as the Tok Batin, acts as the village head of the said Village.

[7] The Second and Third Defendants are members of the Orang Asli Jakun community. Through the First Defendant and together with several other participants, the Defendants have occupied the said Land and cultivated palm oil plantation thereon. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendants vacate the said Land, but they refused, asserting customary rights over the area, which they alleged forms part of their ancestral village known as Kampung Tanam.

[8] Consequently, the Plaintiff commenced this action by way of a writ of summons. The Defendants entered an appearance and subsequently filed a statement of defence, asserting customary rights under the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 ("APA 1954") as well as under common law.

The Plaintiff's Application

[9] The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012. The application was supported by affidavit evidence confirming the Plaintiff's proprietorship of the said Land and demonstrating that the Defendants had neither consent nor licence to occupy it.

[10] In resisting the application, the Defendants contended as follows:

(a) that the said Land forms part of their customary territory as members of the Jakun Orang Asli community;

(b) that the Department of Orang Asli Development (Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli or JAKOA) has recognised the area as an Orang Asli village and appointed the Third Defendant as Tok Batin; and

(c) that the Plaintiff's actions in entering the said Land and erecting notices thereon amounted to trespass upon their customary land.

Submissions Of Parties

[11] The Defendants relied, inter alia, on arts 8(5)(c) and 74 of the Federal Constitution, ss 3 and 6(1) of the APA 1954, the decisions in Adong Kuwau & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor; [1997] 1 MLJ 418; [1997] 3 CLJ 885, Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Sagong Tasi & Ors; [2005] 6 MLJ 289; [2005] 4 CLJ 169; [2005] 5 AMR 629 and Yebet Saman & Ors v. Foong Kwai Long & Ors; [2015] 2 MLJ 498; [2015] 2 CLJ 929. They argued that the purported defence raised triable issues warranting full deliberation through a trial.

[12] The Plaintiff, on the other hand, emphasised that the issue was not one of identity, history or social policy, but whether the Defendants had shown any bona fide triable issue capable of defeating the Plaintiffs claim for summary judgment.

[13] On art 8(5)(c) of the Federal Constitution, the Plaintiff submitted that the provision merely p