Sarawak High Court Strikes Out Land Claims Over Native Communal Reserve, Affirming Native Court Jurisdiction

Introduction

The High Court of Sarawak, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Amelati Parnell J, has struck out a civil suit by plaintiffs seeking to restrain trespass and obtain individual titles over a disputed portion of native communal reserve (NCR) land. The court ruled that the Native Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes under the Sarawak Land Code and Native Court Ordinance, dismissing the claims as an abuse of process after the plaintiffs had already approached the Native Court. The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including the widow of a deceased claimant, against a first defendant accused of trespassing and the state government entities responsible for land administration.

Case Background

The dispute centers on approximately 16.5 acres of land in Lot 270, Block 27, Kemena Land District, near Sungai Belungai, Sungai Tutub, and Sungai Sebiau in Bintulu, Sarawak. This area was gazetted as a Native Communal Reserve (NCR) by the state government on December 6, 2007, under Section 6 of the Sarawak Land Code (Cap. 81). The plaintiffs, led by the first plaintiff (widow of Ramli bin Mahli, who applied for an individual title in 1973), along with other family members and claimants like Rasi bin Sibas and Satam bin Suba, assert beneficial ownership based on native customary rights.

The conflict arose when the first defendant allegedly trespassed on the land, leading the plaintiffs to seek injunctions, vacation of squatters, and declarations of ownership against the first defendant, the Government of Sarawak (second defendant), and the Director of Lands and Surveys (third defendant). Prior to filing this suit in 2024, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings in the District Native Court in Bintulu in 2014. In 2018, the Native Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to award ownership over the gazetted NCR land, directing them to the civil courts. However, the civil suit was filed after a previous similar action (BTU-22NCvC-12/11-2022) was withdrawn following a striking-out application. The main legal questions include: whether the High Court has jurisdiction over NCR land disputes, if the plaintiffs' pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action, and whether the suit constitutes an abuse of process by bypassing the Native Court system.

Arguments Presented

The plaintiffs argued that their statement of claim clearly outlined a reasonable cause of action for trespass against the first defendant and for title issuance against the state defendants. They emphasized that the Native Court in 2018 explicitly declined jurisdiction to grant ownership over the gazetted NCR land, leaving the civil court as the only avenue. Citing Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC), they contended the claim was not frivolous or vexatious, as it stemmed from forged documents produced by the first defendant in Native Court proceedings. They also addressed limitation arguments under the Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, noting the 2014 Native Court filing and delays due to COVID-19 and personal constraints, keeping the 2024 suit within the 12-year period. The plaintiffs accused the first defendant of using the striking-out application to delay trial and asserted no abuse of process, as they followed the Native Court's directive.

The first defendant countered that the land remains state-owned NCR under Section 6 of the Sarawak Land Code, vesting no individual rights in the plaintiffs until titles are issued by the Director of Lands and Surveys. They argued the plaintiffs' pleadings failed to establish locus standi, especially the first plaintiff's capacity to sue on behalf of her deceased husband's unproven claim, and noted procedural flaws like the absence of a Section 198 notice to state authorities. The suit was deemed premature, frivolous, and an abuse of process, with claims against non-entities (e.g., "GOVERNMENT STATE OF SARAWAK") and repetitive of a withdrawn prior action. The first defendant sought RM30,000 in costs for repeated defenses.

The second and third defendants (state entities) echoed these points, asserting the Native Court has jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Native Court Ordinance 1992 over NCR disputes involving native customary rights. They argued the plaintiffs abused process by "forum shopping" after submitting to Native Court jurisdiction without appealing to the Resident's Native Court, rendering the civil suit scandalous, vexatious, and without merit. They highlighted that gazettement provides a mechanism for natives to prove rights via customary law or Native Court, negating any civil court role.

Legal Analysis

The court applied the stringent test for striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the ROC 2012, emphasizing that such powers should only be exercised in "plain and obvious cases" where pleadings are "obviously unsustainable," as established in the locus classicus Bandar Builders Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36. This Supreme Court precedent, reaffirmed in Tan Wei Hong (A Minor Suing Through Guardian Ad Litem And Next Friend Chuang Yin E) & Ors v Malaysia Airlines Bhd [2016] 1 MLJ 1, requires no evidentiary scrutiny under limb (a) but a facial review of pleadings for reasonable cause of action—defined as facts entitling a remedy, per Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 and Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12.

Central to the ruling was Section 6 of the Sarawak Land Code, which allows the Minister to gazette state land as NCR for communities under native personal law, regulating rights via customary law unless modified. The court distinguished this from individual ownership, noting titles are discretionary under Section 6(3). Jurisdiction lies with Native Courts under Section 5(1) and (3)(a)(i) of the Native Court Ordinance 1992 for NCR disputes between natives, with appeals available to the Resident's Native Court under Section 5(b). Precedents like Tan Keat Seng Kitson v Kerajaan Malaysia [1993] 1 MLJ 218 reinforced that striking out is warranted if no reasonable cause exists, considering only pleadings.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' appeal argument, holding that jurisdictional declination did not preclude appeals or further Native Court proceedings, and prior submission estopped civil recourse ( Middy Industries Sdn Bhd & Ors v Arensi-Marley (M) Sdn Bhd [1997] 4 CLJ 610; Harapan Permai Sdn Bhd v Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd [2001] 4 CLJ 181). Prayers for declarations and injunctions against the state were incompetent under Section 29(1)(a) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The repetitive filing after withdrawal was deemed abuse of process ( Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd & Anor v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd [1999] 4 MLJ 609), distinguishing bona fide claims from vexatious ones.

Key Observations

• On the striking-out threshold: "It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule... and this summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is on the face of it 'obviously unsustainable'." ( Bandar Builders Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd )
• Defining cause of action: "A reasonable cause of action simply means a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person." (Citing Letang v Cooper and New Straits Times (Malaysia) Bhd v Kumpulan Kertas Niaga Sdn Bhd & Anor )
• On Native Court jurisdiction: "By virtue of Section 6 (1) and (2) of the Sarawak Land Code and Section 5 (1) and (3)(a)(1) of the Native Court Ordinance, 1992... the Native Court have jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ claim."
• Estoppel from forum shopping: "The Plaintiffs had waived their right and is estopped to bring the claims to other avenue including through this Court. This Court finds that the Plaintiffs has no reasonable cause of action in this case and this action should be strike out."
• Abuse of process: "The Plaintiffs’ claim is an abuse of court process as the Plaintiffs seems to be on the fishing expeditions on different Courts... They file this action not in a bona fide manner and the process has been abused."

Court's Decision

The High Court allowed both striking-out applications (Encl. 12 by the first defendant and Encl. 33 by the second and third defendants), dismissing the plaintiffs' entire statement of claim with costs. No trial was deemed necessary, as the pleadings plainly disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, and an abuse of process due to the exclusive Native Court jurisdiction over NCR disputes.

This ruling reinforces the hierarchical Native Court system for customary land rights in Sarawak, preventing civil court circumvention and ensuring disputes are resolved via customary law channels. It may deter similar "forum shopping" attempts, requiring claimants to exhaust Native Court appeals before civil recourse, potentially streamlining NCR cases but limiting options for those perceiving jurisdictional gaps. Future litigants must serve Section 198 notices and establish clear locus standi in state land claims, impacting native communities' access to remedies for gazetted reserves.