2025 MarsdenLR 2365

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU, AZIMAH OMAR AND NOORIN BADARUDDIN JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11 OF 2021, Q-01(NCVC)(W)-671-11 OF 2021 AND Q-01(NCVC)(W)-672-11 OF 2021
18 December 2025



Joshua Parir Baru (with Clarice Chan) (Baru Bian) in Civil Appeal No Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11 of 2021 for the appellant.
Mohd Adzrul bin Adzlan (with Adzharye bin Johari) (Sarawak Attorney General’s Chambers) in Civil Appeal No Q-01(NCVC)(W)-671-11 of 2021 for the appellants.
Sim Hui Chuang (with Rachel Ho) (Reddi & Co) in Civil Appeal No Q-01(NCVC)(W)-672-11 of 2021 for the appellant.
Mohd Adzrul bin Adzlan (with Adzharye bin Johari) (Sarawak Attorney General’s Chambers) in Civil Appeal No Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11 of 2021 for the first and second respondents.
Sim Hui Chuang (with Rachel Ho) (Reddi & Co) in Civil Appeal No Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11 of 2021 for the third respondent.
Joshua Parir Baru (with Clarice Chan) (Baru Bian) in Civil Appeal Nos Q-01(NCVC)(W)-671-11 of 2021 and Q-01(NCVC)(W)-672-11 of 2021 for the respondent.

A claimant must provide credible evidence to establish native customary rights. Where oral history of land cultivation is contradicted by objective historical aerial photographic evidence, the claim fails. Once land is alienated by the state, title indefeasibility prevails, and the only potential remedy for the occupant is compensation.

Headnote:(A) Land Code (Sarawak Cap. 81) - Sections 5, 10, 17, 84, 93-96, 102 and 202 - Native Customary Right (NCR) - Burden of proof - Evidence of cultivation - Aerial photographic evidence - Limitation of action - Indefeasibility of title - Whether the plaintiff established NCR over the disputed lands - Appellate court's approach to trial court's finding of facts where no reasons are provided (Paras 29, 36, 43, 44).

(B) Evidence - Oral history vs. Documentary evidence - Where oral testimony regarding land cultivation since pre-1958 is contradicted by historical aerial photographic evidence, the latter is accorded greater weight - Necessity for expert interpretation or corroborative evidence of boundary and historical usage (Paras 46, 50, 51, 68).

(C) Land Law - Alienated land - Whether NCR claim subsists after alienation - Established principle that indefeasibility of title prevails over prior NCR, limiting the remedy for affected natives to damages against the government rather than rectification of the register (Paras 32, 85).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be a native of the state, sought a declaration of NCR over several plots of land, alleging that his ancestors had cleared and cultivated the areas prior to 1941. The defendant government and statutory authority asserted that the disputed lands were part of a regulated settlement area where the plaintiff had already been granted other plots, and that the claims were time-barred and undermined by official survey records and historical aerial imagery. The high court granted some declarations but failed to provide reasons for its findings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial judge failed to provide reasons for the conclusions reached, thereby negating the usual appellate deference to findings of fact. The plaintiff's claim of continuous cultivation was directly contradicted by clear aerial photographic evidence showing the land was primary forest during the material period. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own inconsistent evidence, including admissions of knowledge concerning the original settlement exercise, undermined his credibility.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff successfully established native customary rights through oral history in the face of contradictory aerial imagery, whether the claim was barred by limitation under the regional land code, and whether title indefeasibility survives an NCR claim over alienated land.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof for establishing NCR rests on the claimant. Where oral evidence of historical customary use is refuted by objective, historical aerial photographic data, the oral testimony is insufficient. Additionally, valid state alienation of land confers indefeasibility of title, extinguishing prior unasserted native customary rights, for which the sole remedy is a claim for damages.

Result: Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; defendants' appeals allowed.