JUDGMENT

Steve Ritikos JC:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's Amended Originating Summons [encl 56] dated 15 July 2024 seeks several declaratory reliefs aimed at halting proceedings before the 2nd Defendant, the Native Court of Semporna. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks declarations that the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA") dated 5 September 2006 for land originally held under Field Register No 124012817 is valid, that the Native Court lacks jurisdiction because the land was converted into Country Lease No 125354798 on 18 December 2023, and a consequential order striking out the Native Court Case No. BIL. MANS: 012/2024.

Brief Facts

[2] The background facts show that the plaintiff purchased the subject land from the 1st Defendant in 2006. At the material time, the plaintiff relied on two native status recognition letters issued by the Native Courts of Semporna and Tawau. In late 2024, the 1st Defendant lodged a formal letter of inquiry ("Memohon Penyiasatan di atas Geran NT.124012817") with the Native Court of Semporna. The inquiry directly challenged the validity of the plaintiff's native status, asserting that the plaintiff is of Bugis descent and therefore legally ineligible to hold Native Title land. In response to this administrative inquiry, the 2nd Defendant issued Notices of Hearing dated 12 November 2024 and 5 December 2024 to investigate the merits of the complaint and hear any rebuttals. Crucially, the Native Court has not made any final determination, ruling, or substantive decision on either the plaintiff's status or its own jurisdiction.

Issue

[3] The central issue to be determined by this Court is whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory or declaratory jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing Native Court proceedings before that inferior tribunal has rendered a final decision.

Plaintiff's Contention

[4] The plaintiff argues that the land's conversion to a Country Lease automatically extinguishes any jurisdictional link to the Native Court , citing Kwan Ngen Wah & Anor v. Julita Tinggal; [2022] 4 MLJ 287 to assert that civil land tenures fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts.

Defendant's Contention

[5] Conversely, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants contend that the Amended Originating Summons is premature, misconceived, and an impermissible bypass of the statutory machinery set out in the Native Courts Enactment 1992.

Evaluation and Findings

[6] This Court finds that the plaintiff's application is entirely premature and constitutes a misconception of the nature of judicial review and declaratory relief. As established by the Court of Appeal in Mohd Karim Abas & Ors v. Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Hal Ehwal Kesatuan Sekerja; [2013] 4 MLJ 420, judicial intervention is restrained by self-imposed fetters to prevent an exodus of premature claims from disrupting the orderly workings of public and statutory bodies. The 2nd Defendant has merely issued a Notice of Hearing to investigate an administrative enquiry into a person's identity and status. It has not made any adverse order against the plaintiff. For the plaintiff to rush to the High Court before the Native Court can even convene to deliberate on its own statutory boundary is a speculative exercise that cannot be countenanced. Even if the plaintiff had opted to file a judicial review against the 2nd and/or 3rd Defendants, the plaintiff might also not succeed as no decision had yet been made by the 2nd Defendant and there is no decision to be declared null and void on grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality as propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions & Ors v. Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 374 and adopted in R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court Of Malaysia & Anor, [1996] 1 MLRA 725; [1997] 1 MLJ 145; [1997] 1 CLJ 147; [1997] 1 AMR 433.

[7] Furthermore, the plaintiff's argument that the Native Court is completely stripped of jurisdiction ab initio due to the land's conversion