Between Jaya Bin Asahak
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT BINTULU [SUIT NO. 22-01-2002 (BTU)] (NO 2) BETWEEN JAYA BIN ASAHAK [W.N.K.P. No. 530903-13-5351] No. 131A, Kampung Jepak Ulu, Bintulu, Sarawak. ... Plaintiff AND 1. MUNGGAU ANAK LAWAI ... 1st Defendant 2. TEMULI ANAK LAWAI ... 2nd Defendant 3. BAPI ANAK LAWAI ... 3rd Defendant All of RH Bilong Sungai Kakus, Tatau, Bintulu, Sarawak. 4. DIRECTOR OF FOREST Ibu Pejabat Jabatan Perhutanan, Bangunan Wisma Sumber Alam, Jalan Stadium, Petra Jaya, 93600 Kuching, Sarawak. ... 4th Defendant 5. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SARAWAK ... 5th Defendant 6. ALONG BIN BANGAU Rh Oat, Sg. Penyarai Kakus, 97200 Tatau ... 6th Defendant 7. MAHKAMAH BUMIPUTERA TATAU (NATIVE COURT TATAU) ... 7th Defendant CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Law, question of - Point of law decided by native court - Whether appealable to High Court - Whether native court an inferior tribunal - Whether decision of native court subject to judicial review - Section 5 Native Courts Ordinance 1992, whether excludes jurisdiction of High Court NATIVE LAW & CUSTOM: Land dispute - Native customary rights - Dispute as to customary rights over land and ownership of bird-nest cave - Determining exact location of cave, consideration of expert evidence - Customary inheritance, proof of - Melanau-Penan ancestral lineage and kinship - Whether native customary rights over land can be transferred by deed of assignment - Whether native customary rights over bird-nest caves can be lost through abandonment - Jurisdiction of High Court - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 5 LAND LAW: Customary land - Native customary rights - Dispute as to customary rights over land and ownership of bird-nest cave - Determining exact location of cave, consideration of expert evidence - Customary inheritance, proof of - Melanau-Penan ancestral lineage and kinship - Whether native customary rights over land can be transferred by deed of assignment - Whether native customary rights over bird-nest caves can be lost through abandonment - Jurisdiction of High Court - Land Code (Sarawak) (Cap 81), s. 5 [Judgment for plaintiff.] Case(s) referred to: AEG Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian [1961] AIR Calcutta 359 Ayoromi Helen v. PP [2005] 1 MLJ 699 Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board [1953] 1 All ER 1113 Bisi Ak Jinggot v. Superintendent of Lands and Surveys Kuching Division & Ors [2008] 1 LNS 245 Chua Wee Seng v. Fazal Mohamed [1971] 1 MLJ 106 Cooper v. Wilson & Ors [1937] 2 KB 309 2 Datuk Syed Kechik Bin Syed Mohamed v. Government of Malaysia [1979] 2 MLJ 101 Eu Finance Berhad v. Lim Yoke Foo [1982] 1 LNS 21 Galau & Ors v. Penghulu Imang & Ors [1967] 1 MLJ 192 Haji Laugan Tarki Bin Mohd Noor v. Mahkamah Anak Negeri Penampang [1988] 2 MLJ 85 Hollington v. F Hewthorn & Company Ltd. [1943] 2 All ER 35 Perumahaan Farlim (Pg) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Cheng Hang Guan & Ors [1989] 3 MLJ 223 Pesaka-Gammon Construction Sdn Bhd v. Chuan Hin Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 LNS 423 Public Prosecutor v. Munusamy [1980] 2 MLJ 133 Russian Commercial & Industrial Bank v. British Bank for Foreign Trade Limited [1921] 2 AC 438 Saeng-Un Udom v. PP [2001] 3 SLR 1 Sagong Bin Tasi & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors [2002] 2 MLJ 591 Sat Anak Akum & Anor v. Randong Anak Charareng [1958] SCR 104 Sim Tiew Bee v. PP [1973] 2 MLJ 200 Sivalingam a/l Periasamy v. Periasamy & Anor [1995] 3 MLJ 395 Syed Abu Bakar Bin Ahmad v. Public Prosecutor [1984] 2 MLJ 19 Tan Sri Haji Othman Saat v. Mohamed Bin Ismail [1982] 2 MLJ 177 Telekom Cellular Sdn Bhd v. Kabelect Sdn Bhd [2000] 3 CLJ 503 Teh Guan Teik v. IGP & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 137 Tindok Besar Estate Sdn. Bhd. v. Tinjar Co. [1979] 2 MLJ 229 Legislation referred to: Contracts Act 1950, ss. 14, 15, 19, 24, 25 Evidence Act 1950, ss. 93, 94, 114(g) 3 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE Y.A. DATO’ ABDUL AZIZ BIN ABDUL RAHIM IN OPEN COURT (KUCHING) JUDGMENT Introduction The dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st to 3rd Defendants is in respect of Native Customary Rights (“NCR”) and ownership of a birdnest cave (‘the disputed cave’) situate on Bukit Lumut along the Bukit Lumut Range in Merirai - Kakus area in the District of Bintulu, Sarawak. The Plaintiff called the disputed cave Lubang Berkat whilst the 1st to 3rd Defendants called it Lubang Peseilu. For the purpose of this judgment, I will refer to the cave as ‘the disputed cave’. Plaintiff said he inherited the disputed cave from his father and who in turn inherited it from his grandfather. In other words, the ownership and rights to the disputed cave was passed down to the Plaintiff from his ancestors. However the Plaintiff alleged that the 1st to 3rd Defendants had unlawfully and by using threat of bodily harm and violence to Plaintiff have forced the Plaintiff to sign over the ownership and rights over the disputed cave to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants under two instruments that is the Deed of Assignment (Exhibit P33) and the Statutory Declaration (Exhibit P37). Additionally the Plaintiff alleged that 1st to 3rd Defendants have by letter (Exhibit P60) wrongfully claim to have found the disputed cave in 1995 as being part of the Bendawa Cave Complex on the Bukit Lumut Range. 4 Therefore the Plaintiff claimed against the 1st to 3rd Defendants various declaration interalia : (1) that the Plaintiff is entitled to enjoy Native Customary Rights (“the NCR”) and or rights to extract or harvest edible birds’ nests over or from the said “Birds’ Nest Caves” including Lubang Bukit Lumut; (2) that the Plaintiff is the owner of the said “Birds’ Nest Caves” and in particular ‘Lubang Bukit Lumut’ Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu; (3) that purported ‘Pasar Peseilu’ Cave has never been verified, accepted and or approved by the District Office as belonging to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants; (4) that the purported ‘Pasar Peseilu’ cave is in fact the Plaintiff’s ‘Lubang Bukit Lumut’; (5) that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants are precluded from impairing the Plaintiff’s rights, licence and title in ‘Lubang Bukit Lumut’; (6) that the said Deed dated 21.8.2001 (Exhibit P33) and the Letter dated 20.8.2001 (Exhibit P60) is illegal, void, unenforceable and or contrary to public policy;(7) that Licence To Collect/Sell Edible Birds’ Nests No. BC 0750 issued by the 4th Defendant to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the extent of covering or adding ‘Pasar Peseilu’ cave is illegal, void and or improper; (8) damages. In their defence the 1st to 3rd Defendants, contended that they have NCR over the disputed cave. 1st to 3rd Defendants alleged that the disputed cave is part of Bendawa Cave Complex to which they have NCR and rights to collect birdnests. The 1st to 3rd Defendants also alleged that they discovered the disputed cave by accident in 1995 as they travelled far inside the Bendawa Cave Complex. The 1st to 3rd Defendants contended that they had written to the District Officer of Tatau/Bintulu a letter (Exhibit P60) informing the latter about the discovery. 5 Additionally, the 1st to 3rd Defendants contended that the Plaintiff has vide the Deed (Exhibit P33) and the Statutory Declaration (Exhibit P37) relinquished his rights over the disputed cave to the 1st to 3rd Defendants. Therefore, the 1st to 3rd Defendants have also filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking similar declarations as sought by the Plaintiff on the ownership and rights over the disputed cave. The 1st to 3rd Defendants also claimed damages for trespass and assault. The Plaintiff’s claim against the 4th and 5th Defendants is premised on the Plaintiff’s contention that the 4th and 5th Defendants have wrongfully refused to issue birdnest’s licence to the Plaintiff to collect birdnests from the disputed cave because of the disputes between the Plaintiff and the 1st to 3rd Defendants. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that in a parallel development the 2nd Defendant had filed a claim over the disputed claim against one Along anak Bangau in a Native Court proceedings (as shown in Exhibits P42 and P42T). In that Native Court case, the Native Court decided against the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant thereafter filed an appeal to the Native Court of Appeal. However before the appeal could be heard Along anak Bangau decided to abandon or relinquish his rights and claim over the disputed cave and gave it to the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings before the Native Court. For that reason, the Plaintiff has brought in Along anak Bangau as the 6th Defendant and the Native Court as a nominal 7th Defendant so that 6 the decision of the Native Court could be examined and the disputes between all the parties determined once and for all. The Plaintiff’s case The Plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of, and have rights to harvest birds’ nests from, the following birds’ nests caves inherited from his late father, Ashak Bin Lana: (a) Birds’ nest Cave at Sungai Tajam, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (b) Birds’ nest Cave at Batu Belah, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (c) Birds’ nest Cave at Tiang Batu, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (d) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Ulu Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (e) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Bukit Lumut, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (f) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Tupai Belian, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (g) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Lesong, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (h) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Nunuk, Ulu Sungai Melirai, Pandan, Bintulu, Sarawak; (i) Birds’ nest Cave at Lubang Kebunyau, Sungai Melirai, Pandan,