Plaintiff: Sipail
Defendant: Sylvia Jamilah
Perkara: Esteri Saya ada hubungan dengan lelaki lain.
The case was first heard openly on 12-9-2013 but only the plaintiff was present. The court partially heard the complaints from the husband but the judge postponed the case in the absence of the wife.
Second hearing held on 30th Oct 2013 with the wife in the dock
Judge AL, assisted by ketua kampung RJ and Michael S.
Plaintiff testimony:
Last year Sept 2013, the wife complaint of painful back, did not come home but went back alone to a house in Putaton Pinonsok.
On 3/1/2013 I was busy harvesting padi and working as a labourer for RM500 per month at Kg Terian.
On 4/1/2013 the eldest daughter aged 5 had some black marks in the back, I was accused of beating her. I had no time to do that because I am busy doing work. The younger daughter is aged 2.
Actually the eldest daughter is not mine but to protect her dignity I married her at a church in Terian and we beget the 2nd daughter.
On 5/1/2013 I went to harvest padi but in the evening my wife and the two daughters went missing somewhere I did not know. It was Saturday, I was sad but still have to work harvesting padi. That evening my elder sister Evelyn informed that my wife accused me of beating the daughter and had gone to the hospital and made a police report. My elder brother Blasius also told me the same story.
I met KK Mositung of Kg Terian to summon my family to the balai of KK.
I went to the welfare department and police station but none of them ever summon me for anything.
On 22.4.2013 he summoned the wife to the native court which concluded that the wife should return home and family but did not return in April.
In May, I manage to bring them home. An elderly lady came to complain that my wife had given her a fake RM50 note to buy kampung cigarette. So the lady accused her of using fake money.
A detective named Addy investigated her at the Police Station Penampang and this man came to take her several times
When I call the wife, she is not at the police station but sounds like she is at someones home.
While I was staying at my brothers house at the rear of the police station, I felt uneasy because the cops seems to be investigating during the night. This is what happened in early May 2013.
When I asked my wife she said the investigation is done far at Kepayan.
She also denies everytime she is taken out by the police.
She also asked me for RM1050 as a payment for the problem with the fake money but the problem was not solve. She kept going out with the cop even thought the payment is supposed to be paid.
I also dont know why my wife is staying at teh Beverly Hills until now.
She never return to the kampung. As far as I know she does not work, she ask for support but always seems to go out with some boy friends.
Early July this year I was angry, took her handphone and smashed it to the floor. But then I put her simcard into another hp set, then I received many phone calls from males contacting my wife to meet and go for outings.
I also received SMS from Addy and there is also a Pakistani who came to take her. My younger brother witnessed her together with this Paki. Only then I became aware of what is going on with my wife.
So I summon her to this native court but two times she did not turn up, only today she appeared.
In April 2013, she said she had converted to Islam and asked me to do the same. Siou ( sorry ) I told her I am not interested.
So now I do not know how to solve this problem and so asked this court for assistance and proper actions.
(statement signed by plaintiff)
The wife was then placed in the witness box.
She said she understood all what was said by the husband.
Judge asked her, according to our Adat, do you still consider him as your husband?
She mumbled that since she is now a moslem and her husband is not.. judge interrupted her saying that is not an excuse.
Judge said before your answer this question again, look at the reporter behind you first. She then replied in the affirmative that he is still her husband. As for the rest of the allegation by the husband, there are some truth and some that is not.
Judge then ask her what are those not true:
She answered that she is staying at Beverly because she works there and had told her husband before.
She left home because always quarrel with the husband. " I do not like his ways and made me fed up. I ran away to avoid the quarrels. No I have no more feelings for him. How can that be wrong to run away from such husband. Every time he got drunk always beat us up"
So judge ask her if she got proof of this such as making a report with the police and welfare department. She said none.
She was asked, "how do you plan to solve this problem?"
She answered, "I want to let him go, I want a divorce from him"
Judge asked, "how long would you take to solve the problem?"
Answer 2 to 3 months, using the services of a lawyer. Judge also asked her to provide proofs of all her allegations.
The husband responded from outside the dock saying, "If she wants a divorce, I have the right to ask her for refund of all my expenses on her. Better to spend the money feeding the kids rather than solve her problems. It is her asking for divorce and not me".
However the Judge then postponed the hearing since time was running out and he ordered both parties to provide as much proofs as possible to back up their testimonies.
Next date of hearing still Unknown.
======================
Updated today 20/5/2014
I was reliably informed by the Native Court that the open hearing for this case was discontinued as the solution was continued in chamber.
The Native Court has granted a divorce between the two as they had registered their marriage with the Native Court before.
With the wife having converted, reconcilliation is therefore impossible.
Friday 13 December 2013
Tuesday 19 November 2013
NURSE is charge with POLYANDRY - Case No. 239/13 - VERDICT 10 DEC 2013
Case Title: Taking someone else's wife. The wife giving birth to a child, and marrying another man.
Date 2nd hearing: 19 Nov 2013 (missed first hearing)
This nurse Lizzy 29 was originally born in Ranau, got married in church in Penampang, the judge mentioned St Xavier. She seemed to have applied for a transfer to Sandakan as an excuse to be away from the husband.
At Beluran, he married another man via the Native Court and a reception was held.
When the plaintiff was asked if he has fulfilled his obligation as a husband, he affirmed that he had taken care of her and her welfare including religion and love and had given her freedom for normal entertainment only. He never punished her but gave verbal reprimands only.
When the wife was questioned by the court, she replied in affirmative to have understood and agreed with the husband's testimony.
When asked if her welfare was taken care of, she said "maybe" there were some deficiency or lacking but could not specify any example.
She also informed that the Native Courts in Beluran never asked if any one of them were married before.
When the 2nd defendant and second husband was asked, he said that the engagement certificate was not signed because the Village Headman was not present. Only during the village reception party did he put the chop on the certificate. The wifes representative followed up with the marriage registration with the Native Courts of Beluran.
The court announced that the next hearing would be 10 Dec 2013 subject to the replies from the Beluran Native Courts regarding the validity of the marriage certificate. Court was adjourned.
(after the hearing and all the relatives and cousins of the wife have left the court room, this defendant was seen walking alone to her car even without the second husband)
VERDICT on 10 December 2013
The hearing started late, only about 10 am.
The presiding Native Chief started by reminding everyone present in court to turn off or set to silent mode all their handphones and to ensure there is no disturbance to the court proceeding.
He started announcing the verdict by first giving a brief summary of the case.
The case number 239/13 was first heard on 17 Oct 2013 and they have established that the plaintiff and his wife ( the first defendant) are still legally married, the "matod" was carried out on 5 May 2010 at St Xavier's Church and the marriage is registered with NRD.
The plaintiff issued the summon to his wife and 2nd husband on 29 Aug 2013 and the charges were:
1. Mengawini esteri orang lain ( for defendant 2)
2. Melahirkan seorang anak lelaki
3. Berkhawin dengan lelaki lain ( for defendant no. 1)
The second wedding was held in a kampung at Beluran on 14 July 2013 and before that the two defendants has a secret liaison of sexual nature and she was already pregnant
The plaintiff testimony was taken on 29 Aug 2013 and the panel of judges has taken this into account including laboratory reports regarding the baby which confirms that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the baby. Copies of all wedding certificates and birth cerficate of the baby are also available.
Also taken into account were the admissions by both defendants.
The judge then announced the fines or sogit for the offences.
On the first charge, the 2nd defendant is found guilty of SOLOD or marrying another man's wife under section 19(1) and fined 3 buffaloes ( RM4500)
The first defendant is found guilty of MIANU ANU for sexual offence leading to the birth of a baby, under section 10(1) and fined 2 buffaloes (RM3000). For marrying another man while being married to the legal husband, she was found guilty of LAPAU under section 20(1) and fined another one buffalo (rm 1500) and also to pay KEPANASAN KAMPUNG or offence against the virtues and dignity of the village (assume this must be the village where the legal husband lives). However the amount was not stated as the judges are still unsure how much a buffalo cost in the market today.
The Nurse was also warned not to repeat the same offence otherwise all future fine or sogit will be doubled that of the first offence.
All the 6 buffaloes as sogit are payable to the plaintiff.
Both defendants were also fined a sogit of one livestock for every child of the legal marriage, however this was not applied since there were no children from the legal marriage with the plaintiff.
The court cost was set at RM1500
The court also gave an order that both the defendant cannot remain or live together as their marriage certificate issued by the Beluran Native Court is considered NULL AND VOID. The two defendant must settle with the plaintiff first all issues ( assumed including formalising a divorce between the plaintiff and his wife) before deciding what to do with their futures.
The maintenance of the new born baby will be the responsibility of the 2nd defendant as the plaintiff has made it clear from the start that he will not accept the baby as his own.
Hence the total fines handed by the court to the two defendants is a whopping RM10,500 and still excluding the Kepanasan Kampung which must be paid to the court within 30 days, in default further fines and a jail term will be imposed.
However, the judges were quick to remind that should any of the parties is not satisfied with any of the ruling of the court, they can appeal to the District Native Court presided by the District Officer within 60 days.
Both the plaintiff and defendants were asked if they had anymore thing to say or would appeal the ruling. The plaintiff said that he was satisfied with the verdict while both defendant also hinted that they will not appeal all the rulings of the court.
Court was adjourned or fully concluded at about 11 am.
MORAL OF THIS CASE: NEVER ever fooled around with the wife of a native, what more take her for a wife. So before getting married, both parties really must be sure of the marital status of your potential spouse if you want to avoid paying a total of 6 buffaloes which seems to be 6 times more expensive than marrying a virgin !!!
Also this Customary Law in Sabah is not going to be abandoned anytime soon in favour of Western Style sex freedom. Instead the said Native Customary Law Enactment is being strengthen by the Native Chiefs community where they often have a Native Law seminar where proposal for improvement of the laws and revisions of the fines are constantly being discussed.
Date 2nd hearing: 19 Nov 2013 (missed first hearing)
This nurse Lizzy 29 was originally born in Ranau, got married in church in Penampang, the judge mentioned St Xavier. She seemed to have applied for a transfer to Sandakan as an excuse to be away from the husband.
At Beluran, he married another man via the Native Court and a reception was held.
When the plaintiff was asked if he has fulfilled his obligation as a husband, he affirmed that he had taken care of her and her welfare including religion and love and had given her freedom for normal entertainment only. He never punished her but gave verbal reprimands only.
When the wife was questioned by the court, she replied in affirmative to have understood and agreed with the husband's testimony.
When asked if her welfare was taken care of, she said "maybe" there were some deficiency or lacking but could not specify any example.
She also informed that the Native Courts in Beluran never asked if any one of them were married before.
When the 2nd defendant and second husband was asked, he said that the engagement certificate was not signed because the Village Headman was not present. Only during the village reception party did he put the chop on the certificate. The wifes representative followed up with the marriage registration with the Native Courts of Beluran.
The court announced that the next hearing would be 10 Dec 2013 subject to the replies from the Beluran Native Courts regarding the validity of the marriage certificate. Court was adjourned.
(after the hearing and all the relatives and cousins of the wife have left the court room, this defendant was seen walking alone to her car even without the second husband)
VERDICT on 10 December 2013
The hearing started late, only about 10 am.
The presiding Native Chief started by reminding everyone present in court to turn off or set to silent mode all their handphones and to ensure there is no disturbance to the court proceeding.
He started announcing the verdict by first giving a brief summary of the case.
The case number 239/13 was first heard on 17 Oct 2013 and they have established that the plaintiff and his wife ( the first defendant) are still legally married, the "matod" was carried out on 5 May 2010 at St Xavier's Church and the marriage is registered with NRD.
The plaintiff issued the summon to his wife and 2nd husband on 29 Aug 2013 and the charges were:
1. Mengawini esteri orang lain ( for defendant 2)
2. Melahirkan seorang anak lelaki
3. Berkhawin dengan lelaki lain ( for defendant no. 1)
The second wedding was held in a kampung at Beluran on 14 July 2013 and before that the two defendants has a secret liaison of sexual nature and she was already pregnant
The plaintiff testimony was taken on 29 Aug 2013 and the panel of judges has taken this into account including laboratory reports regarding the baby which confirms that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the baby. Copies of all wedding certificates and birth cerficate of the baby are also available.
Also taken into account were the admissions by both defendants.
The judge then announced the fines or sogit for the offences.
On the first charge, the 2nd defendant is found guilty of SOLOD or marrying another man's wife under section 19(1) and fined 3 buffaloes ( RM4500)
The first defendant is found guilty of MIANU ANU for sexual offence leading to the birth of a baby, under section 10(1) and fined 2 buffaloes (RM3000). For marrying another man while being married to the legal husband, she was found guilty of LAPAU under section 20(1) and fined another one buffalo (rm 1500) and also to pay KEPANASAN KAMPUNG or offence against the virtues and dignity of the village (assume this must be the village where the legal husband lives). However the amount was not stated as the judges are still unsure how much a buffalo cost in the market today.
The Nurse was also warned not to repeat the same offence otherwise all future fine or sogit will be doubled that of the first offence.
All the 6 buffaloes as sogit are payable to the plaintiff.
Both defendants were also fined a sogit of one livestock for every child of the legal marriage, however this was not applied since there were no children from the legal marriage with the plaintiff.
The court cost was set at RM1500
The court also gave an order that both the defendant cannot remain or live together as their marriage certificate issued by the Beluran Native Court is considered NULL AND VOID. The two defendant must settle with the plaintiff first all issues ( assumed including formalising a divorce between the plaintiff and his wife) before deciding what to do with their futures.
The maintenance of the new born baby will be the responsibility of the 2nd defendant as the plaintiff has made it clear from the start that he will not accept the baby as his own.
Hence the total fines handed by the court to the two defendants is a whopping RM10,500 and still excluding the Kepanasan Kampung which must be paid to the court within 30 days, in default further fines and a jail term will be imposed.
However, the judges were quick to remind that should any of the parties is not satisfied with any of the ruling of the court, they can appeal to the District Native Court presided by the District Officer within 60 days.
Both the plaintiff and defendants were asked if they had anymore thing to say or would appeal the ruling. The plaintiff said that he was satisfied with the verdict while both defendant also hinted that they will not appeal all the rulings of the court.
Court was adjourned or fully concluded at about 11 am.
MORAL OF THIS CASE: NEVER ever fooled around with the wife of a native, what more take her for a wife. So before getting married, both parties really must be sure of the marital status of your potential spouse if you want to avoid paying a total of 6 buffaloes which seems to be 6 times more expensive than marrying a virgin !!!
Also this Customary Law in Sabah is not going to be abandoned anytime soon in favour of Western Style sex freedom. Instead the said Native Customary Law Enactment is being strengthen by the Native Chiefs community where they often have a Native Law seminar where proposal for improvement of the laws and revisions of the fines are constantly being discussed.
Husband had illicit sex with underaged student resulting in the birth of a child, Case No 300/13
The Draft Article for press:
Case Title : Secret Liaison of Husband with the cousin of his wife
Plaintiff: Wife from Kg Madsiang
Date of Hearing: 18 Nov 2013
Plaintiff Plea: Request the Native Court to settle her case, punish the husband if found guilty.
Briefs of the Case: ( names will not be mentioned due to underaged involved)
The plaintiff appeared incapable of making her statements and had to be coaxed by the judges.
She informed that they have 3 children, 2 are already schooling
The husband is a self employed mechanic who had a baby born early this year to a schoolgirl and her cousin. She initially claim to maintain affection for her husband.
Her cousin is a moslem while she is a Roman Catholic.
She told the court that should her husband be forced to marry the girl and convert to Islam, she will definitely not follow in the conversion and if forced to divorce the husband due to this, that she will claim both compensation, maintenance and custody of all the children. The judges have to coax her if she also wanted to have alimony for herself.
In response, the husband simply admitted to everything said by his wife and said nothing else. He signed the statement both with a pen and a right hand thumbprint.
Later the Ketua Kampung also informed the judges that he had seen the husband with the student before and warned them not to play with "fire",
( he said saya nasihat mereka jangan main api, but really they did "main api" after all, and sadly in local malay idiom, "main api" means to have illicit sex) This also prompted the judge to count the months from the month of the birth of the child and the month when the ketua kampung gave them the advice, and concluded that his advice was too late, that the stomach was already filled with a baby !!)
This case was postponed to a later date in order to summon the other woman (student) as second defendant.
THE father of the plaintiff also informed this reporter that he had already made a police report against his son in law and after this case is dealt with in this court there will be another charge of Statutory Rape against his son in law.
UPDATE: Hearing on 6th Dec 2013.
The defendant and schoolgirl was unable to be present in court on time because they travelled in the morning all the way from Kota Belud.
The panel of judges waited until 10 am and then recorded a postponement to a later date in January 2014.
Half an hour later, the defendant and schoolgirl arrived outside the courtroom door but the judge has already left the building. However, he managed to talk to the two ladies who are village chiefs of different kampungs and also acted as members of the panels. The defendant informed them and this reporter that they were stucked in a flooded road between Inanam and Menggatal and their vehicle broke down and had to call for assistance. Also he had called the handphone of the Village Chief from Kg Madsiang who passed the hphone to his father in law.
However, the father in law did not inform the court of his predicament during the morning hearing while the Kg Madsiang village chief did not attend the hearing.
Thus the defendant remarked to this reporter that the Ketua Kg of Madsiang is biased because he is related to his father in law.
The lady ketua kampung suggested to him to stay in Penampang during the next hearing instead of travelling all the way from Kota Belud while this reporter adviced him that he should have called the official number of the admin section of the native court instead.
HEARING CONTINUED ON 20 JAN 2014
More particulars on 1st defendant: Born in 1982 - 32 y.o. mechanic
2nd defendant from Kg Kasau Minansud Kota Belud now 19 yr o.
Plaintiff was again put in witness dock for more questions. She said:
Her children were aged 12 yrs, 9 yrs and 2yrs 5 months ( one girl)
If husband marries the moslem girl, she cannot do anything because he would automatically divorce me as a wife as she is RC and would never wants to convert to another religion including her children and would accept the consequence that the three children will never be able to inherit any properties of the father. She is already too lazy to investigate if her husband had married or not the other girl.
Her husbands workshop business at Madsiang is already closed, still got licence but no clients.
If divorced, she will still asked for maintenance as there is no one else to feed the children.
Defendant 1 inside the witness dock:
Judge repeat part of his previous testimony that the affair is true and not denied. When asked what why and what purpose, the defendant replied with the classic statement:-
"Bukan diminta, bukan dirancang dan tidak disengajakan."
He said he only pitied the student at that time.
Judge asked him if he pitied his own wife and 3 children and whether he can control his lust (nafsu). No answer.
He claimed he regretted what happened and wish to take care of both women.
Claims he had not planned to marry the girl due to different religion and at the moment still has not converted to Islam but when he is with the girl, they lived in the same house like husband and wife. Sometimes go back to Madsiang to stay with the legal wife.
If possible he wants both the women.
Married for 12 years with the legal wife
At present he had not made any decision because have not discussed with the girl's parent and needs more time to get confirmation once he meets the parents.
So the court decided that one month time will be given.
Next hearing will be 19 feb 2014, 9 am
Before that Testimony form girl taken from the witness dock:
She confirmed that the affair occured and that she gave birth to the baby boy which is now 2 months old and currently being taken care by the mechanics parents.
He plans were to "mau jalan sendiri" or continue with her own life and do not really wants to get married to the man and do not want any more relations.
Initially my father wants me to get married since I already bore a child but at present we still have not married yet.
It was the mechanic who planned to have a wedding but now not confirmed.
( at this point of testimony, the plaintiff pointed her fingers to her head)
She also said that the mechanic still wants to go to her house to be with her.
Judge then adjourned the hearing to 19 Feb 2014.
HEARING Continued on 19 Feb 2014 as planned.
Again plaintiff was put into the witness dock;
Again confirmed she and her children will not want to convert to Islam even if the children cannot inherit anything from the father, but demands maintenance for the children. She also informed that her parents in law could not care less what her husband is doing, dont want to be involved, however the court informed her that she can take this issue privately with her parents in law as the court is only looking into the secret affair issue.
She was warned not to be in contempt of court for her previous outburst that the court was taking too long to settle this case. ( she signed the statements)
The first defendant (mechanic) again placed in the witness stand.
He was asked if after the one month break if he had met with the girl's parent.
He instead asked the court if true that if he converts to Islam, that his children are still allowed to be given his properties, the court replied that he should go and seek confirmation with MUIS himself.
He informed the court that the girls parent gave the following conditions:
If he goes back to his legal wife, ok but he has to pay all the expenses incurred by the daughter and full maintenance for the baby. If he wants to marry her also allowed meaning the girls parents now wants the mechanic to make the decision. However he said that the girls parent dont consider her their daughter anymore because of her accidental pregnancy.
Meanwhile he claimed that his wife do not want to accept him as a husband anymore because her parents scolds her if she returns to their marital home.
If I go back to the wife, she always raised up past issues and will be in argument over that. So I cannot go back because the whole of wifes family now hates him and even rammed my car.
If we divorced he said, I wanted his 3 children to be given the freedom of choice to be with him or the wife. However the judge said that they are only hearing the issues of his secret affair and not a divorce petition.
The question is whether the affair and pregnancy was done on purpose or not.
Having nothing else to say, mechanic signed his statement with his thumbprint.
Verdict set on 14 March 2014 because the mechanic is busy looking for a new place to stay.
VERDICT: as on 14th March, 9:30 am
Panel reading the verdict
District Chief: Christopher Mojungkim
Native chief: Andrew Lidaun
Village Chief: Michael Sigawal
Facts taken into account of judgement:
1. First defendant admission that the baby is his
2. Regret his action but claimed it was not planned
3. The girl is still not married and had just left school
4. Allowed to see the parents of the girl by the court
5. If the defendant returns to his own wife, he has to take full responsibility of the expenses of the girl and baby
Facts and statement from 2nd defendant (girl) is effectively the same
The panel thus find both defendants guilty of offence against the native adat. The fines are:
1. Under section 3 (10) mianu anu = 2 ekor kerabau (RM 3000)
2. Appeasement for village = 1 full cost of buffalo (RM2500)
3. Sogit for 3 children of his own: = 1 pig (RM500)
4. Court cost discounted to RM1000 from 1500.
(defendant 1 pays rm800, defendant 2 pays rm700)
TOTAL: RM 7000.
14 days to pay or face jail of 6 months, 1 month for the girl
Can appeal but was advised that he had admitted the offence
Mechanic asked if he can give a cow instead of buffalo. Allowed provided it is an adult cow and can deliver to the ketua kampong Madsiang who will give a receipt.
Mechanic begs to give more time for payment and in installment.
Court adjourned. (bang bang)
PENAMPANG. The Native Court here found a 32-year-old mechanic and his 19-year-old companion and a fresh school leaver guilty of “mianu-anu”under Part III, 10(1) under the Native Court Enactment 1992. Their illicit affair resulted in the birth of a baby boy which is now 4 months old.
District Chief Christopher Mojungkim, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Head Michael Sigawal were unanimous in their verdict and fined them a total of RM 7000.00 consisting of sogit of two heads of livestock (RM3000) for the wife as plaintiff, a full cost of RM2500 for a water buffalo as “Kepanasan Kampung” (appeasement of the village), one pig (RM500) for sogit to the three children and court cost of RM1000 (after the mechanic begged for a reduction) of which RM300 is to be paid by the companion as second defendant.
According to the facts of the case, the wife filed the case at the Native Court upon discovering her husband’s secret affair with her young cousin whom he would fetch from school and brought her out for a date. It was wrongly report on February 21, in Daily Express that the girl was the cousin of the husband instead of the wife’s cousin.
The mechanic and his wife married under the native tradition and their marriage certificate were registered on 6 April 2002 at the Native Courts of Penampang. They have three children aged 2 years and six months, nine and twelve.
In mitigation, the husband had given the court a quotable excuse that the girl’s pregnancy “was not requested, not planned and not done on purpose” and signed with his thumb prints, however failed to impress the native judges. He has now decided to marry the girl who is a muslim which will initiate another divorce proceedings by the wife who has declared to the court that she and her three children will remain firm as Christians.
The court gave the mechanic 14 days to pay all the fines or face 6 months jail while the girl faced 1 month jail if she fails to pay her RM300 court cost fine. He can also appeal within 60 days however was advised that since he had admitted his offence during the proceedings, appealing may aggravate his case.
After the verdict and fines were read, the mechanic pleaded to be given more time to pay the fines and asked if he can give a cow instead of RM2500 for the village. The court allowed that a cow and not a calf is acceptable since it is also considered as one head of livestock and he may delivered the whole cow to the village head who will then issue a receipt.
Outside the court, the village head and the father of the plaintiff who were both present for the verdict informed that they will carry out the ritual sacrifice of the cow and the pig in accordance to the practices of the natives when the mechanic has honoured his promise.
Case Title : Secret Liaison of Husband with the cousin of his wife
Plaintiff: Wife from Kg Madsiang
Date of Hearing: 18 Nov 2013
Plaintiff Plea: Request the Native Court to settle her case, punish the husband if found guilty.
Briefs of the Case: ( names will not be mentioned due to underaged involved)
The plaintiff appeared incapable of making her statements and had to be coaxed by the judges.
She informed that they have 3 children, 2 are already schooling
The husband is a self employed mechanic who had a baby born early this year to a schoolgirl and her cousin. She initially claim to maintain affection for her husband.
Her cousin is a moslem while she is a Roman Catholic.
She told the court that should her husband be forced to marry the girl and convert to Islam, she will definitely not follow in the conversion and if forced to divorce the husband due to this, that she will claim both compensation, maintenance and custody of all the children. The judges have to coax her if she also wanted to have alimony for herself.
In response, the husband simply admitted to everything said by his wife and said nothing else. He signed the statement both with a pen and a right hand thumbprint.
Later the Ketua Kampung also informed the judges that he had seen the husband with the student before and warned them not to play with "fire",
( he said saya nasihat mereka jangan main api, but really they did "main api" after all, and sadly in local malay idiom, "main api" means to have illicit sex) This also prompted the judge to count the months from the month of the birth of the child and the month when the ketua kampung gave them the advice, and concluded that his advice was too late, that the stomach was already filled with a baby !!)
This case was postponed to a later date in order to summon the other woman (student) as second defendant.
THE father of the plaintiff also informed this reporter that he had already made a police report against his son in law and after this case is dealt with in this court there will be another charge of Statutory Rape against his son in law.
UPDATE: Hearing on 6th Dec 2013.
The defendant and schoolgirl was unable to be present in court on time because they travelled in the morning all the way from Kota Belud.
The panel of judges waited until 10 am and then recorded a postponement to a later date in January 2014.
Half an hour later, the defendant and schoolgirl arrived outside the courtroom door but the judge has already left the building. However, he managed to talk to the two ladies who are village chiefs of different kampungs and also acted as members of the panels. The defendant informed them and this reporter that they were stucked in a flooded road between Inanam and Menggatal and their vehicle broke down and had to call for assistance. Also he had called the handphone of the Village Chief from Kg Madsiang who passed the hphone to his father in law.
However, the father in law did not inform the court of his predicament during the morning hearing while the Kg Madsiang village chief did not attend the hearing.
Thus the defendant remarked to this reporter that the Ketua Kg of Madsiang is biased because he is related to his father in law.
The lady ketua kampung suggested to him to stay in Penampang during the next hearing instead of travelling all the way from Kota Belud while this reporter adviced him that he should have called the official number of the admin section of the native court instead.
HEARING CONTINUED ON 20 JAN 2014
More particulars on 1st defendant: Born in 1982 - 32 y.o. mechanic
2nd defendant from Kg Kasau Minansud Kota Belud now 19 yr o.
Plaintiff was again put in witness dock for more questions. She said:
Her children were aged 12 yrs, 9 yrs and 2yrs 5 months ( one girl)
If husband marries the moslem girl, she cannot do anything because he would automatically divorce me as a wife as she is RC and would never wants to convert to another religion including her children and would accept the consequence that the three children will never be able to inherit any properties of the father. She is already too lazy to investigate if her husband had married or not the other girl.
Her husbands workshop business at Madsiang is already closed, still got licence but no clients.
If divorced, she will still asked for maintenance as there is no one else to feed the children.
Defendant 1 inside the witness dock:
Judge repeat part of his previous testimony that the affair is true and not denied. When asked what why and what purpose, the defendant replied with the classic statement:-
"Bukan diminta, bukan dirancang dan tidak disengajakan."
He said he only pitied the student at that time.
Judge asked him if he pitied his own wife and 3 children and whether he can control his lust (nafsu). No answer.
He claimed he regretted what happened and wish to take care of both women.
Claims he had not planned to marry the girl due to different religion and at the moment still has not converted to Islam but when he is with the girl, they lived in the same house like husband and wife. Sometimes go back to Madsiang to stay with the legal wife.
If possible he wants both the women.
Married for 12 years with the legal wife
At present he had not made any decision because have not discussed with the girl's parent and needs more time to get confirmation once he meets the parents.
So the court decided that one month time will be given.
Next hearing will be 19 feb 2014, 9 am
Before that Testimony form girl taken from the witness dock:
She confirmed that the affair occured and that she gave birth to the baby boy which is now 2 months old and currently being taken care by the mechanics parents.
He plans were to "mau jalan sendiri" or continue with her own life and do not really wants to get married to the man and do not want any more relations.
Initially my father wants me to get married since I already bore a child but at present we still have not married yet.
It was the mechanic who planned to have a wedding but now not confirmed.
( at this point of testimony, the plaintiff pointed her fingers to her head)
She also said that the mechanic still wants to go to her house to be with her.
Judge then adjourned the hearing to 19 Feb 2014.
HEARING Continued on 19 Feb 2014 as planned.
Again plaintiff was put into the witness dock;
Again confirmed she and her children will not want to convert to Islam even if the children cannot inherit anything from the father, but demands maintenance for the children. She also informed that her parents in law could not care less what her husband is doing, dont want to be involved, however the court informed her that she can take this issue privately with her parents in law as the court is only looking into the secret affair issue.
She was warned not to be in contempt of court for her previous outburst that the court was taking too long to settle this case. ( she signed the statements)
The first defendant (mechanic) again placed in the witness stand.
He was asked if after the one month break if he had met with the girl's parent.
He instead asked the court if true that if he converts to Islam, that his children are still allowed to be given his properties, the court replied that he should go and seek confirmation with MUIS himself.
He informed the court that the girls parent gave the following conditions:
If he goes back to his legal wife, ok but he has to pay all the expenses incurred by the daughter and full maintenance for the baby. If he wants to marry her also allowed meaning the girls parents now wants the mechanic to make the decision. However he said that the girls parent dont consider her their daughter anymore because of her accidental pregnancy.
Meanwhile he claimed that his wife do not want to accept him as a husband anymore because her parents scolds her if she returns to their marital home.
If I go back to the wife, she always raised up past issues and will be in argument over that. So I cannot go back because the whole of wifes family now hates him and even rammed my car.
If we divorced he said, I wanted his 3 children to be given the freedom of choice to be with him or the wife. However the judge said that they are only hearing the issues of his secret affair and not a divorce petition.
The question is whether the affair and pregnancy was done on purpose or not.
Having nothing else to say, mechanic signed his statement with his thumbprint.
Verdict set on 14 March 2014 because the mechanic is busy looking for a new place to stay.
VERDICT: as on 14th March, 9:30 am
Panel reading the verdict
District Chief: Christopher Mojungkim
Native chief: Andrew Lidaun
Village Chief: Michael Sigawal
Facts taken into account of judgement:
1. First defendant admission that the baby is his
2. Regret his action but claimed it was not planned
3. The girl is still not married and had just left school
4. Allowed to see the parents of the girl by the court
5. If the defendant returns to his own wife, he has to take full responsibility of the expenses of the girl and baby
Facts and statement from 2nd defendant (girl) is effectively the same
The panel thus find both defendants guilty of offence against the native adat. The fines are:
1. Under section 3 (10) mianu anu = 2 ekor kerabau (RM 3000)
2. Appeasement for village = 1 full cost of buffalo (RM2500)
3. Sogit for 3 children of his own: = 1 pig (RM500)
4. Court cost discounted to RM1000 from 1500.
(defendant 1 pays rm800, defendant 2 pays rm700)
TOTAL: RM 7000.
14 days to pay or face jail of 6 months, 1 month for the girl
Can appeal but was advised that he had admitted the offence
Mechanic asked if he can give a cow instead of buffalo. Allowed provided it is an adult cow and can deliver to the ketua kampong Madsiang who will give a receipt.
Mechanic begs to give more time for payment and in installment.
Court adjourned. (bang bang)
Saturday 16 November 2013
OZULU Vs MOJINGGOL Land Dispute NT 10893 Case No. 221/13
Case Title: Land Ownership Dispute
Native Judges: WKAN Andrew Lidaun, Kg Kolopis
KK Ationg Totu, Kg Mahandoi
KK Michael Sikawah, Kg Tunoh
Dates: First Hearing: 3 Sept 2013, Plaintiff Testimony
2nd Hearing: 24 Sept 2013, Defendant Testimony
and relevant village headman testimony
3rd Hearing: 10-10-2013, Testimonies of 4 plaintiff's witnesses
Verdict Date: 15-11-2013
Plaintiff Representative: Violet Matilda Ozulu
Defendant : Clarence Sipain Mojinggol
Verdict Summary: The Native Court Decided in favour of plaintiff
Defendants reaction: Informed he will appeal the verdict within 60 days.
Plaintiff Testimony:
The intention of her submission was to claim a share of a customary land at Ramaya with rent 40 cts and area 0.78 acre and the former land title was NT 1043. This land was jointly owned by her father Ozulu Jouling and Jimain Malangin. Her mother is Livina Malangin who is the sister of Jimain.
(Ozulu is therefore the brother-in-law of Jimain and that explains why they jointly bought this piece of land from a previous owner)
Jimain's children who are also interested parties in this land are Joseph Mohd Jimain @ Jomani and Angeline Jimain (who were present in court)
In 1964, a first cousin of Jimain and Livina by name of Stephen Sipain Mojinggol-SSM (defendant's father) begged both Ozulu and Jimain for one lot sufficient to build a house on the said land.
Based on family affection, both owners agreed and no sale and purchase agreement was involved.
In order to build the house SSM needed a loan from Borneo Housing that required collateral. Since the land was in the name of the original owners, SSM requested that land title be changed to his name in for the purpose of a loan amounting to RM15K which was obtain on 24-9-1964.
Based on trust alone there was no written agreement and the remaining lot of the land is suppose to be returned to the owners after the loan was fully paid.
When the loan was settled, SSM himself took the initiative to hire a licenced surveyor and sumitted the plans for Lot 1 and Lot 2 which was approved by the PPHT (ACLR or Assistant Collector of Land Revenue in English) on 23 Sept 1978 and the District Officer at that time was Mr Simon Gonsilou.
The proposed subdivision was not carried out because the house built by SSM had encroached on a neighbouring land owned by Angeline Jimain.
Before this subdivision can be settled, the joint owners have died.
Jimain passed away on 15-11-1983 while Ozulu followed on 26-3-1984.
In the absence of the rightful owners, on 18-12-1984, SSM took the opportunity to transfer the ownership of the land to his son Clarence Sipain Mojinggol - CSM, without the knowledge of the family of the original owners.
Based on records on the land title, in 1986 CSM then charged this land for a loan of RM12K at Hongkong and Shanghai Bank for reasons known to him alone.
Base on his date of birth 4 Feb 1961, CSM was just 23y.o. when the land was transferred to him and charged it to the bank when he was 25 y.o.
When the judge asked why this land was never queried all these time, plaintiff informed that she telephone CSM younger brother who is a lawyer by the name of Oswald, and was told that the land title is in Kuala Lumpur because of some loan.
On 21st Jun 2013, CSM issued a notice to demolish a house in Lot 2 currently being occupied by a relative of the plaintiff, using the service of a legal firm Bulagang & Co.
The relative's name are Celestina Gilong and Simon Onggitom. They have built a small house on Lot 2 with approval and one-off token payment of RM3K, from Angeline Jimain and her late husband Johnny Bosuin who have been administrating the land since the original owners have died.
Another old house in Lot 2 currently occupied by Jomani Jimain Abdullah was demolished on 6-7-2013 without any notice. This house was already existing long before SSM built his house in Lot 1, and once belonged to the grandparents of Jomani.
In conclusion, plaintiff submited to the court for the return of only Lot 2 to the family of the original owners and hope that the dispute can be fully settled in this native court. She said that there is no claim on Lot 1 since what is given away by their parents shall be honoured.
(STATEMENT signed by Plaintiff)
DEFENDANT'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
CSM stated the following:-
1. There was a proposed "combination and subdivision" not subdivision alone. Due to the proposed combination, it needed two land titles namely NT 4714 and NT 10893. This proposal was agreed.
2. Lot 1 would then belong to Stephen Sipain Mojinggol while Lot 2 would belong to Jimain Malangin and Ozulu Jouling
3. This proposal was agreed and approved by the PPHT on 23-Sept-1976 and his late father engaged a professional surveyor in 1980
4. After the survey was completed, the land title for NT10893 was submitted to JTU for the purpose of subdivision but could not be carried out because the title for NT 4714 was not submitted for reasons I did not know. This land title is involved because the house built by his father was also occupying this land. (he did not say why or was that agreed to by the land owner of NT4714)
5. The land owner of NT 4714 was Jimain Malangin alone and he did not submit the title to JTU. After he died, request through lawyer to Angeline Jimain@ Binjumis to submit the title received no coorperation.
6. His father then withdrew the land title for NT 10893 from JTU after not getting any resolution.
7. His younger brother Oswald Mojinggol went overseas to UK to study for a law degree, and the land title NT 10893 is now kept by the Yayasan Sabah as a security for a study loan hence the land title is still being used because the loan is not yet fully settled.
8. The land was bought by my father and the proof is in a form of a receipt for payment of NT 10893 for an amount of 500 ringgit and the date of purchase is 19-5-1968. The receipt was signed by Jimain as recepient and witnessed by Mr Monjuil as witness (now deceased) for the sum of 500 ringgit. (not RM at that time)
9. As for the contention by plaintiff that family affection was involved, it is not true as the land was bought for a price of 500 ringgit, please refer to the receipt
10. In my knowledge, the other land NT4714 was sold by Angeline Jimain to one MR Vincent Benjamin Tamin for RM 50,000 on 23-2-2001.
I should be asked first before selling this land since I have vested interest in the said land since my house is also partially sitting on the land. As a family matter I should be informed of this sale but I only got to know in 2013.
11. Before this the plaintiff has put a caveat on the land NT 10893 for reasons I did not know but I succeeded in removing the caveat in 2012.
After removing the caveat, I proceeded to engage lawyers Bulangang & Co in order to defend my rights in Jun 2013 as owner of the land NT 10893.
12. This land was transferred to me by my father because I stood as guarantor for the Yayasan Sabah loan for my younger brother.
Thats all, statement signed.
STATEMENT BY village chief Benedict Bestan John, KK of Ramaya
The Native Court then proceed to call opinions of the relevant village chief as he is part of the Native Court system.
1. He said he knows about this land
2. As far as he knows this land NT 10893 is owned by Jimain and Ozulu
3. From the land title, there is no sale and purchase because a stamp to this effect is missing from the land title but confirms there was a loan from Borneo Housing
4. The name on the title was converted to SSM for the sole purpose of getting a loan but there was no written agreement since all were based on trust.
5. There is a subdivision for Lot 1 and Lot 2.
6. SSM transferred the title to his son in 1984 without the knowledge of the family of Jimain and Ozulu.
7. There is evidence on the land title that it was charged to Hongkong Shanghai Bank for a loan that was paid in 3 years
8. A house in lot 2 which once belong to Malangin for so long was demolished by CSM in July 2013 before this court case was settled. I went to the site to request them not to demolish until the court has heard the case but I was totally ignored.
( end statement by Ketua Kampung)
The plaintiff was then told by the court that if she has witnesses for the next hearing to be held on 10-10-2013, then she must subpoena them through the court admin section.
THIRD HEARING: TESTIMONIES BY 4 PLAINTIFF WITNESSES
First witness: Clare John Bosuin (daugher of Angeline Jimain)
1. Disagreed that the land NT 10893 was sold as stated by the defendant
2. Reason: this customary land was only loan to SSM on Sept 7, 1964
3. The payment of 500 ringgit was only a token for one lot and also used to fill the Memo of Transfer form to change the name in the title to enable SSM to obtain a loan from Borneo Housing.
4. She read out a message from her mother, "Take Lot 1 which is yours and return Lot 2 to us because we are a family"
She explained that her mum have vocal problem testifying herself due to a recent stroke.
Second witness: Beatrice Mojimbang from Kg Ramaya
1. She know very well that the land was not sold but only loan to SSM who needed a loan to build a house
2. Sipain and Jimain are first cousins and Sipain asked for one lot to build a house
3. SSM promised Jimain that he will not cheat him on this land and will return the title after he retires from work when all would be settled.
4. When both Jimain and Ozulu passed away SSM took advantage and transfer the land title to his son.
5. This dispute never arose until Clarence demolished the house where Jimain's son Joseph Jomani is still occupying.
6. The payment of 500 ringgit was just consolation for transferring the name in the title to enable SSM to get a loan from Borneo Housing
7. I heard clearly SSM thanking Jimain for giving him one lot and promised that when he is a retires from work, he will subdivide the land as per their agreement.
8. My husband is Stephen Biusing and he is a very close friend of SSM.
Jimain and SSM would come to our house for social drinking and that is how I overheard all of these facts from them.
Third witness: Celestina Edith Gilong
1. I live in Kg Ramaya Penampang
2. Rented a house on the land NT 10893 belonging to Jimain Malangin for 3 years
3. Because the house is small and I have a large family, Angeline Jimain gave permission to build another house on the other side of the road but still on the same land, with a one token payment of 3000 ringgit.
4. I am related to the Ozulu family
5. My family have stayed at this new house for the last 20 years
6. We were shocked to receive an eviction notice from Clarence saying we are intruders on his land. The first notice was on 6 Sept 2011, second on October 2013 and the third via a letter from lawyers Bulagang & Co on 26 June 2013.
7. We never moved but defended our position. We are still staying there because we have nowhere else to go. We know from the beginning that the land does not belong to CSM but just one lot is his.
Fourth witness: Winne bte Jinungin
1. Malangin and Jinungin are brothers
2. My father is Jinungin, and so Livina Malangin is my auntie
3. Livina has also told me about SSM request for one lot to build a house on this land and that the land was never sold but just one lot was given to SSM.
After the short statement by the last witness, the Native court adjourned the hearing for verdict on 15-Nov 2013.
Summary of Courts Verdict
The judges took into account amongst other that:
1. Family affections and mutual trust played a part in the agreement.
2. The land title was not returned to the original owners but there exist and approved subdivision proposal in 1978 signed by Simon Gonsilou as DO.
3. The proposed subdivision did not materialise because of the encroachment of the house built on another adjacent land
4. After 9 months when no one else claimed the land, SSM took opportunity to transfer the title to his son.
5. There was no further action on the land until eviction notices was issued to the occupants of Lot 2.
6. It was believed that Angeline Jimain is the administrator of Lot 2.
7. Due to the pressure from CSM via his lawyer Bulagang, another lawyer Datuk James Ghani has written a letter requesting this native court to hear the case to decide who really owns this land.
8. Facts from the defendant himself including his father appointing a surveyor to subdivide the land,
9. Defendant's statement that the land was bought for 500 ringgit in 1968 and there was no family affection involved cannot be true because 10 years later there was a proposal for subdivision.
10. A land next door of similar size was sold for 50 thousand ringgit, hence not logical for this land to be sold for a mere 500 ringgit.
11. Witness no. 2 showed that SSM took advantage when the two previous owners died.
12. Witness no 3 paid 3,000 ringgit as token just to be able to stay on the land as compared to the 500 ringgit paid by SSM.
13. The ketua kampung of Ramaya knows about this land but the defendant did not respect his orders not to demolish the house on lot 2 while the case is still pending at the native court
14. Witness no. 1, the land was not returned after the loan was paid but subdivision was proposed. The so-called payment for the land for 500ringgit on 19-5-1968 and witnessed by Monjuil was assumed by the defendant as purchase of the land while 10 years later on 25 sept 1978 the proposed subdivision was submitted. There is a significant contradiction and so the 500ringgit is a mere token for being given Lot 1 from the land.
The sum of 500 ringgit was entered into the MOT so that the land can be returned to the original owners.
15. A fileful of documents submitted by both parties were taken into account of this verdict
The judge also commented amongst other things that:
1. What is borrowed should be returned,
2. Love and affection did play a part in this matter
3. The land could not have been sold for 500 ringgit when the land next door was sold for 50 K ringgit and the token payment by Gilong was 3000 ringgit just to stay on the land.
Hence the verdict of the judges, based on equity, system of natural justice and fair to both parties without biased, have unanimously decided in favour of the Plaintiff and the court orders that in the land NT 10893,
LOT 1 is owned by the defendant
LOT 2 is owned by the plaintiff
in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision 1301/63/143 submitted on 23 sept 1978.
The case should be settled at this level of the court, however if any of the parties is not satisfied with this verdict, can appeal to the District Officer (Mahkamah Anak Negeri Peringkat Daerah) within 60 days.
He advised the defendant to think deeply before submitting his appeal after he asked how to appeal against the verdict.
(After analysing the case and the judges summary of judgement I wonder what the heck is the defendants basis for appeal, except perhaps to use lawyers to find loopholes base on technicality)
UPDATE:
As on 5th Dec 2013, the plaintiff has informed that the defendant had submitted his appeal to the District Office via the admin section of the Native Court.
APPEAL FIRST HEARING on 17 Jun 2013 before DO William Sampil, and two Native Chiefs, Adrian Sikawah and Marcus Johnioh.
According to respondents, the appellant started pointing fingers to Celestina as the problem for carrying out renovation on her house in Lot 2 despite being given a letter of eviction.
Meanwhile, the respondent Matilda had several witnesses with her including the mother of the person who bought the land next door where the house built by Clarence father had encroached into.
Native Judges: WKAN Andrew Lidaun, Kg Kolopis
KK Ationg Totu, Kg Mahandoi
KK Michael Sikawah, Kg Tunoh
Dates: First Hearing: 3 Sept 2013, Plaintiff Testimony
2nd Hearing: 24 Sept 2013, Defendant Testimony
and relevant village headman testimony
3rd Hearing: 10-10-2013, Testimonies of 4 plaintiff's witnesses
Verdict Date: 15-11-2013
Plaintiff Representative: Violet Matilda Ozulu
Defendant : Clarence Sipain Mojinggol
Verdict Summary: The Native Court Decided in favour of plaintiff
Defendants reaction: Informed he will appeal the verdict within 60 days.
Plaintiff Testimony:
The intention of her submission was to claim a share of a customary land at Ramaya with rent 40 cts and area 0.78 acre and the former land title was NT 1043. This land was jointly owned by her father Ozulu Jouling and Jimain Malangin. Her mother is Livina Malangin who is the sister of Jimain.
(Ozulu is therefore the brother-in-law of Jimain and that explains why they jointly bought this piece of land from a previous owner)
Jimain's children who are also interested parties in this land are Joseph Mohd Jimain @ Jomani and Angeline Jimain (who were present in court)
In 1964, a first cousin of Jimain and Livina by name of Stephen Sipain Mojinggol-SSM (defendant's father) begged both Ozulu and Jimain for one lot sufficient to build a house on the said land.
Based on family affection, both owners agreed and no sale and purchase agreement was involved.
In order to build the house SSM needed a loan from Borneo Housing that required collateral. Since the land was in the name of the original owners, SSM requested that land title be changed to his name in for the purpose of a loan amounting to RM15K which was obtain on 24-9-1964.
Based on trust alone there was no written agreement and the remaining lot of the land is suppose to be returned to the owners after the loan was fully paid.
When the loan was settled, SSM himself took the initiative to hire a licenced surveyor and sumitted the plans for Lot 1 and Lot 2 which was approved by the PPHT (ACLR or Assistant Collector of Land Revenue in English) on 23 Sept 1978 and the District Officer at that time was Mr Simon Gonsilou.
The proposed subdivision was not carried out because the house built by SSM had encroached on a neighbouring land owned by Angeline Jimain.
Before this subdivision can be settled, the joint owners have died.
Jimain passed away on 15-11-1983 while Ozulu followed on 26-3-1984.
In the absence of the rightful owners, on 18-12-1984, SSM took the opportunity to transfer the ownership of the land to his son Clarence Sipain Mojinggol - CSM, without the knowledge of the family of the original owners.
Based on records on the land title, in 1986 CSM then charged this land for a loan of RM12K at Hongkong and Shanghai Bank for reasons known to him alone.
Base on his date of birth 4 Feb 1961, CSM was just 23y.o. when the land was transferred to him and charged it to the bank when he was 25 y.o.
When the judge asked why this land was never queried all these time, plaintiff informed that she telephone CSM younger brother who is a lawyer by the name of Oswald, and was told that the land title is in Kuala Lumpur because of some loan.
On 21st Jun 2013, CSM issued a notice to demolish a house in Lot 2 currently being occupied by a relative of the plaintiff, using the service of a legal firm Bulagang & Co.
The relative's name are Celestina Gilong and Simon Onggitom. They have built a small house on Lot 2 with approval and one-off token payment of RM3K, from Angeline Jimain and her late husband Johnny Bosuin who have been administrating the land since the original owners have died.
Another old house in Lot 2 currently occupied by Jomani Jimain Abdullah was demolished on 6-7-2013 without any notice. This house was already existing long before SSM built his house in Lot 1, and once belonged to the grandparents of Jomani.
In conclusion, plaintiff submited to the court for the return of only Lot 2 to the family of the original owners and hope that the dispute can be fully settled in this native court. She said that there is no claim on Lot 1 since what is given away by their parents shall be honoured.
(STATEMENT signed by Plaintiff)
DEFENDANT'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
CSM stated the following:-
1. There was a proposed "combination and subdivision" not subdivision alone. Due to the proposed combination, it needed two land titles namely NT 4714 and NT 10893. This proposal was agreed.
2. Lot 1 would then belong to Stephen Sipain Mojinggol while Lot 2 would belong to Jimain Malangin and Ozulu Jouling
3. This proposal was agreed and approved by the PPHT on 23-Sept-1976 and his late father engaged a professional surveyor in 1980
4. After the survey was completed, the land title for NT10893 was submitted to JTU for the purpose of subdivision but could not be carried out because the title for NT 4714 was not submitted for reasons I did not know. This land title is involved because the house built by his father was also occupying this land. (he did not say why or was that agreed to by the land owner of NT4714)
5. The land owner of NT 4714 was Jimain Malangin alone and he did not submit the title to JTU. After he died, request through lawyer to Angeline Jimain@ Binjumis to submit the title received no coorperation.
6. His father then withdrew the land title for NT 10893 from JTU after not getting any resolution.
7. His younger brother Oswald Mojinggol went overseas to UK to study for a law degree, and the land title NT 10893 is now kept by the Yayasan Sabah as a security for a study loan hence the land title is still being used because the loan is not yet fully settled.
8. The land was bought by my father and the proof is in a form of a receipt for payment of NT 10893 for an amount of 500 ringgit and the date of purchase is 19-5-1968. The receipt was signed by Jimain as recepient and witnessed by Mr Monjuil as witness (now deceased) for the sum of 500 ringgit. (not RM at that time)
9. As for the contention by plaintiff that family affection was involved, it is not true as the land was bought for a price of 500 ringgit, please refer to the receipt
10. In my knowledge, the other land NT4714 was sold by Angeline Jimain to one MR Vincent Benjamin Tamin for RM 50,000 on 23-2-2001.
I should be asked first before selling this land since I have vested interest in the said land since my house is also partially sitting on the land. As a family matter I should be informed of this sale but I only got to know in 2013.
11. Before this the plaintiff has put a caveat on the land NT 10893 for reasons I did not know but I succeeded in removing the caveat in 2012.
After removing the caveat, I proceeded to engage lawyers Bulangang & Co in order to defend my rights in Jun 2013 as owner of the land NT 10893.
12. This land was transferred to me by my father because I stood as guarantor for the Yayasan Sabah loan for my younger brother.
Thats all, statement signed.
STATEMENT BY village chief Benedict Bestan John, KK of Ramaya
The Native Court then proceed to call opinions of the relevant village chief as he is part of the Native Court system.
1. He said he knows about this land
2. As far as he knows this land NT 10893 is owned by Jimain and Ozulu
3. From the land title, there is no sale and purchase because a stamp to this effect is missing from the land title but confirms there was a loan from Borneo Housing
4. The name on the title was converted to SSM for the sole purpose of getting a loan but there was no written agreement since all were based on trust.
5. There is a subdivision for Lot 1 and Lot 2.
6. SSM transferred the title to his son in 1984 without the knowledge of the family of Jimain and Ozulu.
7. There is evidence on the land title that it was charged to Hongkong Shanghai Bank for a loan that was paid in 3 years
8. A house in lot 2 which once belong to Malangin for so long was demolished by CSM in July 2013 before this court case was settled. I went to the site to request them not to demolish until the court has heard the case but I was totally ignored.
( end statement by Ketua Kampung)
The plaintiff was then told by the court that if she has witnesses for the next hearing to be held on 10-10-2013, then she must subpoena them through the court admin section.
THIRD HEARING: TESTIMONIES BY 4 PLAINTIFF WITNESSES
First witness: Clare John Bosuin (daugher of Angeline Jimain)
1. Disagreed that the land NT 10893 was sold as stated by the defendant
2. Reason: this customary land was only loan to SSM on Sept 7, 1964
3. The payment of 500 ringgit was only a token for one lot and also used to fill the Memo of Transfer form to change the name in the title to enable SSM to obtain a loan from Borneo Housing.
4. She read out a message from her mother, "Take Lot 1 which is yours and return Lot 2 to us because we are a family"
She explained that her mum have vocal problem testifying herself due to a recent stroke.
Second witness: Beatrice Mojimbang from Kg Ramaya
1. She know very well that the land was not sold but only loan to SSM who needed a loan to build a house
2. Sipain and Jimain are first cousins and Sipain asked for one lot to build a house
3. SSM promised Jimain that he will not cheat him on this land and will return the title after he retires from work when all would be settled.
4. When both Jimain and Ozulu passed away SSM took advantage and transfer the land title to his son.
5. This dispute never arose until Clarence demolished the house where Jimain's son Joseph Jomani is still occupying.
6. The payment of 500 ringgit was just consolation for transferring the name in the title to enable SSM to get a loan from Borneo Housing
7. I heard clearly SSM thanking Jimain for giving him one lot and promised that when he is a retires from work, he will subdivide the land as per their agreement.
8. My husband is Stephen Biusing and he is a very close friend of SSM.
Jimain and SSM would come to our house for social drinking and that is how I overheard all of these facts from them.
Third witness: Celestina Edith Gilong
1. I live in Kg Ramaya Penampang
2. Rented a house on the land NT 10893 belonging to Jimain Malangin for 3 years
3. Because the house is small and I have a large family, Angeline Jimain gave permission to build another house on the other side of the road but still on the same land, with a one token payment of 3000 ringgit.
4. I am related to the Ozulu family
5. My family have stayed at this new house for the last 20 years
6. We were shocked to receive an eviction notice from Clarence saying we are intruders on his land. The first notice was on 6 Sept 2011, second on October 2013 and the third via a letter from lawyers Bulagang & Co on 26 June 2013.
7. We never moved but defended our position. We are still staying there because we have nowhere else to go. We know from the beginning that the land does not belong to CSM but just one lot is his.
Fourth witness: Winne bte Jinungin
1. Malangin and Jinungin are brothers
2. My father is Jinungin, and so Livina Malangin is my auntie
3. Livina has also told me about SSM request for one lot to build a house on this land and that the land was never sold but just one lot was given to SSM.
After the short statement by the last witness, the Native court adjourned the hearing for verdict on 15-Nov 2013.
Summary of Courts Verdict
The judges took into account amongst other that:
1. Family affections and mutual trust played a part in the agreement.
2. The land title was not returned to the original owners but there exist and approved subdivision proposal in 1978 signed by Simon Gonsilou as DO.
3. The proposed subdivision did not materialise because of the encroachment of the house built on another adjacent land
4. After 9 months when no one else claimed the land, SSM took opportunity to transfer the title to his son.
5. There was no further action on the land until eviction notices was issued to the occupants of Lot 2.
6. It was believed that Angeline Jimain is the administrator of Lot 2.
7. Due to the pressure from CSM via his lawyer Bulagang, another lawyer Datuk James Ghani has written a letter requesting this native court to hear the case to decide who really owns this land.
8. Facts from the defendant himself including his father appointing a surveyor to subdivide the land,
9. Defendant's statement that the land was bought for 500 ringgit in 1968 and there was no family affection involved cannot be true because 10 years later there was a proposal for subdivision.
10. A land next door of similar size was sold for 50 thousand ringgit, hence not logical for this land to be sold for a mere 500 ringgit.
11. Witness no. 2 showed that SSM took advantage when the two previous owners died.
12. Witness no 3 paid 3,000 ringgit as token just to be able to stay on the land as compared to the 500 ringgit paid by SSM.
13. The ketua kampung of Ramaya knows about this land but the defendant did not respect his orders not to demolish the house on lot 2 while the case is still pending at the native court
14. Witness no. 1, the land was not returned after the loan was paid but subdivision was proposed. The so-called payment for the land for 500ringgit on 19-5-1968 and witnessed by Monjuil was assumed by the defendant as purchase of the land while 10 years later on 25 sept 1978 the proposed subdivision was submitted. There is a significant contradiction and so the 500ringgit is a mere token for being given Lot 1 from the land.
The sum of 500 ringgit was entered into the MOT so that the land can be returned to the original owners.
15. A fileful of documents submitted by both parties were taken into account of this verdict
The judge also commented amongst other things that:
1. What is borrowed should be returned,
2. Love and affection did play a part in this matter
3. The land could not have been sold for 500 ringgit when the land next door was sold for 50 K ringgit and the token payment by Gilong was 3000 ringgit just to stay on the land.
Hence the verdict of the judges, based on equity, system of natural justice and fair to both parties without biased, have unanimously decided in favour of the Plaintiff and the court orders that in the land NT 10893,
LOT 1 is owned by the defendant
LOT 2 is owned by the plaintiff
in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision 1301/63/143 submitted on 23 sept 1978.
The case should be settled at this level of the court, however if any of the parties is not satisfied with this verdict, can appeal to the District Officer (Mahkamah Anak Negeri Peringkat Daerah) within 60 days.
He advised the defendant to think deeply before submitting his appeal after he asked how to appeal against the verdict.
(After analysing the case and the judges summary of judgement I wonder what the heck is the defendants basis for appeal, except perhaps to use lawyers to find loopholes base on technicality)
UPDATE:
As on 5th Dec 2013, the plaintiff has informed that the defendant had submitted his appeal to the District Office via the admin section of the Native Court.
APPEAL FIRST HEARING on 17 Jun 2013 before DO William Sampil, and two Native Chiefs, Adrian Sikawah and Marcus Johnioh.
According to respondents, the appellant started pointing fingers to Celestina as the problem for carrying out renovation on her house in Lot 2 despite being given a letter of eviction.
Meanwhile, the respondent Matilda had several witnesses with her including the mother of the person who bought the land next door where the house built by Clarence father had encroached into.
Tuesday 12 November 2013
STRANGE, It was the Plaintiff who failed to appear in court for Case No. 291/13
Case Title: Not Known Yet
First hearing date: 12/11/2013 (today)
All Native Court hearings are schedule to start at 9.00 am sharp but when the judges came into the courtroom at about 9.10 am, the plaintiff was not present. So the chief judge declared he is going to wait until 9.30 am and if the plaintiff still failed to arrive, he will record a postponement to a later date. There was no objection from the defendant.
--------------------------------------------------
This post will be continued if the date for the next hearing is known.
However a person sitting in the public gallery informed that the case is about the defendant, (fiancee) having secret relation with another man.
Hence it is therefore strange that the plaintiff failed to come when he is possibly avenging for his broken heart or scorned by a young woman.
There are plenty of records where the defendant try their best to avoid the case by refusing to turn up or ignoring the summons from the native court but for this year, this is the first case where the complainant is missing.
So the best advice to this fiance is simply come to court and ask for an amicable split with your fiancee, maybe request for the return of any dowry if any that was delivered, but be a gentleman and never asked for gifts to be returned. There is a famous Kadazan song by Datuk Justin Stimol that says, while loans and debts have to be paid, any gifts shall be brought along to your graves.
And I have found someone singing this song, RTM star Rose Disuil sang this live at Buhavan Sq. Embedded here for your easy reference
And if the fiance is broken hearted for not turning up to the hearing that he applied for, here is a broken heart song by Joseph George, "Iziau no Daa" that was top 10 in Radio Sabah VFM, but performed live at Magellan Sutera KK. And I suggest he sings this song for one month to his ex-fiancee, he he he he he
Monday 11 November 2013
Guilty defendant appealed for reduction on the fines imposed Case No. 290/13
Case Title: Husband have Secret Liaison with another woman
Open hearing date: 25 Oct 2013
Verdict date: 11 Nov 2013
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, the wife run away to work in Singapore (without husband's permission) in order to earn a living & to support the youngest child who is studying for a degree level in QS.
Although the judge was not happy with wife running away from family, however it was justified because she has a car loan and ASB loan to pay while the husband who is a pensioner from the Water Department did not even give a cent from his pension and gratuity for the youngest child.
The car was meant for the youngest child to attend the college/university.
This led to quarrels and the husband would tell the wife to get out of home.
She had tried to work in KK but the income was insufficient, still she promised to return to her family after earning enough in Singapore to pay for all the loans. The monthly income in Singapore is Sing$1800.
In comparison, the husband's previous income from the water department was RM1800.
Plaintiff alleged that the husband kept another woman and even brought her back to the family home. She has no objection to him marrying again on the conditions that he does not bring the other woman into the family home and that the Native Laws are complied with. As for his present offence against the native customs, she leaved it to the court to decide.
In response, the first defendant (husband) admitted having another woman or in native language, "au mogohim" ( did not deny) and even stated that he intended to take a second wife. On this the judge reminded him that under the native customs, there are lots of fines to pay for example "hapau" ( loosely translated adding another layer to existing family, wife and children). He responded that he was willing to face the consequences under the native customs.
During the first hearing, the judge even commented that being at a pensionable age and with grown up children, do you still really need a girlfriend?
The second defendant (girlfriend) admitted she was brought home as a wife but was told that her husband to be do not have a wife for the last 7 years.
She also admitted having done something not supposed to be done before being married and would not brush off any penalty imposed.
However, she signed the statement using her RH thumb print.
After two weeks, the native court comprising of three native judges declared unanimously that:
1. This was a straightforward case with no denials
2. Both defendants are guilty of secret liaison of sexual nature under section 10(1) of the native courts enactment
3. The first defendant to pay a total of RM 5500 comprising of :-
a) 2 buffaloes (RM3000)
b) Appeasement for the village (RM1000)
c) court cost (RM1500)
4. Second defendant to pay court cost (RM500)
On hearing this amount of "Sogit" the first defendant appealed for a reduction, on which the judges granted after consultation with one another and since it appears that the first defendant will be paying for both the sogits, it was reduced to RM4600 from a total of RM6000 previously provided that he signed a pledge to pay it within 14 days at the native court administration section.
The defendant then asked the court if he can divorce his first wife, to which the presiding judge told him to go and meet the priest who first blessed their marriage, and then hire a lawyer to apply for the divorce at the high court.
================
Moral of the case: Do not assume you can marry, get a divorce and marry again that easily if you are a native in this country.
Sunday 10 November 2013
CALM and Kool Kat defendant on another Secret Liaison Case: No 201/13
Case Title: "Mianu anu" or Secret Liaison between a wife and another man.
Verdict Date: 29 Sept 2013
Plaintiff: Husband
Plaintiff testimony not available as the reporter was not present during the first hearing.
The Native Judges (one Presiding and 2 Assessors) announced their verdict that the wife has illicit sexual relation with another man at a different residential area, and they came to this conclusion that the free sex occurred due to the admission by both defendants, viz the wife and the other man.
Verdict: Both have to pay "sogit" to the plaintiff and the court up to RM 7K comprising of:-
1. 2 buffaloes ( RM 3,000)
2. Appeasement for the village of plaintiff: RM2000
3. Native court fee : RM1500
4. The other man "sogit" to children of plaintiff: RM500
These sum of "sogit" to be paid within 14 days to the native court which will then disburse them to the relevant parties.
======================
After the verdict was read and the judges have left the courtroom, the first defendant (the other man) went around and shook the hands of everyone present in court including this reporter. That is why he deserved the title "Kool Kat Defendant" and seemed sporting enough, no problems paying the fine and no time wasted.
Also no mention if there will be a divorce between the wife and husband.
In Kadazandusun Law, there are four types of punishment
1. sogit = ritual fine
2. Komoluan = compensation for disgrace
3. Babas = gifts for conciliation
4. Kolugian = reimbursement for loss
For more details, please read Special Report in local Daily Express Newspaper page 12 Sunday edition 10 November 2013, not sure if available online. Article written by Tracy Patrick
Verdict Date: 29 Sept 2013
Plaintiff: Husband
Plaintiff testimony not available as the reporter was not present during the first hearing.
The Native Judges (one Presiding and 2 Assessors) announced their verdict that the wife has illicit sexual relation with another man at a different residential area, and they came to this conclusion that the free sex occurred due to the admission by both defendants, viz the wife and the other man.
Verdict: Both have to pay "sogit" to the plaintiff and the court up to RM 7K comprising of:-
1. 2 buffaloes ( RM 3,000)
2. Appeasement for the village of plaintiff: RM2000
3. Native court fee : RM1500
4. The other man "sogit" to children of plaintiff: RM500
These sum of "sogit" to be paid within 14 days to the native court which will then disburse them to the relevant parties.
======================
After the verdict was read and the judges have left the courtroom, the first defendant (the other man) went around and shook the hands of everyone present in court including this reporter. That is why he deserved the title "Kool Kat Defendant" and seemed sporting enough, no problems paying the fine and no time wasted.
Also no mention if there will be a divorce between the wife and husband.
In Kadazandusun Law, there are four types of punishment
1. sogit = ritual fine
2. Komoluan = compensation for disgrace
3. Babas = gifts for conciliation
4. Kolugian = reimbursement for loss
For more details, please read Special Report in local Daily Express Newspaper page 12 Sunday edition 10 November 2013, not sure if available online. Article written by Tracy Patrick
Saturday 9 November 2013
Native Court Judge scolded ex-husband that even birds know how to feed their chicks: - Case 226/13
Case heading: Not paying sustenance cost for 3 children since divorce was formalised in court
Plaintiff: Parents of ex-wife
Defendant: Mr Wong, ex-husband
Open Hearing: 11 September 2013
Plaintiff's testimony:
1. The father of former wife (who was not present in court) informed the court that the defendant had not paid a cent since the divorce was formalised where the court had fixed the rate to be paid
2. Three of his children aged 16, 15 and 13 all are attending schools have been staying with him and wife for 9 years and both he and wife have been bearing the cost of raising the children
3. The defendant and his daughter were married at Terawi Church in 1996 and split due irreconcilable differences. They have been seperated for 10 years
4. The amount owed has now totalled 60 thousand RM
5. Sadly his own daughter who is working in Kuala Lumpur seemed to have washed her hands over her own children too.
This prompted the judge to scold the defendant that even adult birds know how to feed their chicks and added that the mother (ex-wife) should also share the responsibility in raising the kids.
6. Plaintiff last statement was that he also have difficulty contacting his daughter in KL.
Defendant's respond:
As usual the judge made sure he had heard and understood all the statement from the plaintiff and made him signed that statement.
The judge then asked the defendant why "Janji tidak ditepati" ( meaning promised not fulfilled, which is a play on the government's slogan of "Janji ditepati" = all promises fulfilled)
The defendant gave two idiotic reasons, economic problems and that his girlfriend is controlling him and money.
This prompted another scolding and he was told to kick out his girlfriend.
The Native Court solved the problem simply by ordering the man to give details of his employer and that a court order will be issued to the employer to deduct the proper amount from his salary to include installments on the RM60 K arrears.
( Moral of this case: Don't just get married but never learn to be responsible over your own children. As the judge said, if the birds know how to look after their chicks, then what kind of a human being is it that simply abandoned their own kid? )
SUPPORTING the judge's comment, here is a pic of birds feeding their chicks, heeee hawwww.
Plaintiff: Parents of ex-wife
Defendant: Mr Wong, ex-husband
Open Hearing: 11 September 2013
Plaintiff's testimony:
1. The father of former wife (who was not present in court) informed the court that the defendant had not paid a cent since the divorce was formalised where the court had fixed the rate to be paid
2. Three of his children aged 16, 15 and 13 all are attending schools have been staying with him and wife for 9 years and both he and wife have been bearing the cost of raising the children
3. The defendant and his daughter were married at Terawi Church in 1996 and split due irreconcilable differences. They have been seperated for 10 years
4. The amount owed has now totalled 60 thousand RM
5. Sadly his own daughter who is working in Kuala Lumpur seemed to have washed her hands over her own children too.
This prompted the judge to scold the defendant that even adult birds know how to feed their chicks and added that the mother (ex-wife) should also share the responsibility in raising the kids.
6. Plaintiff last statement was that he also have difficulty contacting his daughter in KL.
Defendant's respond:
As usual the judge made sure he had heard and understood all the statement from the plaintiff and made him signed that statement.
The judge then asked the defendant why "Janji tidak ditepati" ( meaning promised not fulfilled, which is a play on the government's slogan of "Janji ditepati" = all promises fulfilled)
The defendant gave two idiotic reasons, economic problems and that his girlfriend is controlling him and money.
This prompted another scolding and he was told to kick out his girlfriend.
The Native Court solved the problem simply by ordering the man to give details of his employer and that a court order will be issued to the employer to deduct the proper amount from his salary to include installments on the RM60 K arrears.
( Moral of this case: Don't just get married but never learn to be responsible over your own children. As the judge said, if the birds know how to look after their chicks, then what kind of a human being is it that simply abandoned their own kid? )
SUPPORTING the judge's comment, here is a pic of birds feeding their chicks, heeee hawwww.
Friday 8 November 2013
Native Court tried to patch a broken marriage for a couple applying for Divorce: - Case 174/13
Open hearing date: 1 Aug 2013
Plaintiff: RM from Country Heights
Defendant: OS from Kg Kolopis
Case Heading: Plaintiff (wife) Applying or Requesting for Divorce from Husband
Plaintiff Testimony:
1. Were married at Kg Mandurian Laut, Pitas
2. No certificate of marriage from any authority except for engagement certificate signed by a village headman (Ketua Kampong)
Since they were not legally married, the native judge requested her to bring along any wedding photographs to his office later.
3. When asked by the judge for reasons why she wanted the divorce, she answered her affection has declined, which prompted the judge to suggest that she was "kumaus"? meaning sulking.
4. When pressed further for reasons, she said that they were seperated for 3 years during which she never received any maintenance for her third child which is with her. The elder two children are with the husband. She lived alone and worked to support herself and the third child.
5. She declined to reply when asked what if the husband returns to her with affection.
6. She had no objection to be given a marriage certificate by the Native Court and willing to pay for the cost, in order to formalise the divorce.
7. She also informed that she had been waiting at the office of this court since 7 am this morning
8. As a final statement she confirmed requesting for the divorce from the husband.
(STATEMENT was then signed)
Defendant's response:
1. Have heard and understood completely the plaintiff's complaint
2. Willing to proceed with the divorce processes including first getting a marriage certificate and then divorce after one week.
3. When pressed for reasons for his agreeing to the divorce, he stated irreconcilable differences and continuous argument over family matters.
4. He declared he has no other woman or girlfriend at this time.
On hearing these testimonies, the judge announced that there is no verdict for this hearing but request both parties to see him in his chamber, after the open hearing was completed.
(This reporter assumed that the Judge would attempt to reconcile and save the marriage of this couple first, before proceeding with the divorce procedures. Until the time of writing, there is no further info on the progress of this case)
Note: Inside info is that it would take 3 months for the courts to complete the divorce processes. Also the Native Court have no power to process or approve divorces for those who married in church and registered with JPN. Only those who got married via the adat kampung may be terminated by this native courts. (updated 14.11.2013)
The hearing was continued on 25 Nov 2013 where the Native Court again open a fresh hearing to determine if the couple really wants to divorce with mutual agreement.
The marriage certificate was already issued by the native court 3 months ago and again the wife was quizzed all over again if she wanted to proceed with the divorce without regret. The judges even tried to become marriage councellors by suggesting they take a second honeymoon to Labuan with their children.
However both the plaintiff and defendant insist that the divorce be carried out since there was already like 5 hearings in this court and the same thing is said all over again.
As for the children, the 2 eldest will be taken care by the husband while the wife takes the youngest child with an agreement that both will have access to all children whenever needed.
Therefore as on 25th Nov 2013, the judges then declared unanimously to grant the divorce application based on agreement by both parties and that the marriage certificate issued on 1st Aug 2013 is thereby nullified.
MORAL of the story, all couples intending to get married better be warned that if you use divorce as a way to solve your marital problem, then better be ready to face a long wait for the process to run its course.
CASE STORY ENDED as on 25/11/2013
Plaintiff: RM from Country Heights
Defendant: OS from Kg Kolopis
Case Heading: Plaintiff (wife) Applying or Requesting for Divorce from Husband
Plaintiff Testimony:
1. Were married at Kg Mandurian Laut, Pitas
2. No certificate of marriage from any authority except for engagement certificate signed by a village headman (Ketua Kampong)
Since they were not legally married, the native judge requested her to bring along any wedding photographs to his office later.
3. When asked by the judge for reasons why she wanted the divorce, she answered her affection has declined, which prompted the judge to suggest that she was "kumaus"? meaning sulking.
4. When pressed further for reasons, she said that they were seperated for 3 years during which she never received any maintenance for her third child which is with her. The elder two children are with the husband. She lived alone and worked to support herself and the third child.
5. She declined to reply when asked what if the husband returns to her with affection.
6. She had no objection to be given a marriage certificate by the Native Court and willing to pay for the cost, in order to formalise the divorce.
7. She also informed that she had been waiting at the office of this court since 7 am this morning
8. As a final statement she confirmed requesting for the divorce from the husband.
(STATEMENT was then signed)
Defendant's response:
1. Have heard and understood completely the plaintiff's complaint
2. Willing to proceed with the divorce processes including first getting a marriage certificate and then divorce after one week.
3. When pressed for reasons for his agreeing to the divorce, he stated irreconcilable differences and continuous argument over family matters.
4. He declared he has no other woman or girlfriend at this time.
On hearing these testimonies, the judge announced that there is no verdict for this hearing but request both parties to see him in his chamber, after the open hearing was completed.
(This reporter assumed that the Judge would attempt to reconcile and save the marriage of this couple first, before proceeding with the divorce procedures. Until the time of writing, there is no further info on the progress of this case)
Note: Inside info is that it would take 3 months for the courts to complete the divorce processes. Also the Native Court have no power to process or approve divorces for those who married in church and registered with JPN. Only those who got married via the adat kampung may be terminated by this native courts. (updated 14.11.2013)
The hearing was continued on 25 Nov 2013 where the Native Court again open a fresh hearing to determine if the couple really wants to divorce with mutual agreement.
The marriage certificate was already issued by the native court 3 months ago and again the wife was quizzed all over again if she wanted to proceed with the divorce without regret. The judges even tried to become marriage councellors by suggesting they take a second honeymoon to Labuan with their children.
However both the plaintiff and defendant insist that the divorce be carried out since there was already like 5 hearings in this court and the same thing is said all over again.
As for the children, the 2 eldest will be taken care by the husband while the wife takes the youngest child with an agreement that both will have access to all children whenever needed.
Therefore as on 25th Nov 2013, the judges then declared unanimously to grant the divorce application based on agreement by both parties and that the marriage certificate issued on 1st Aug 2013 is thereby nullified.
MORAL of the story, all couples intending to get married better be warned that if you use divorce as a way to solve your marital problem, then better be ready to face a long wait for the process to run its course.
CASE STORY ENDED as on 25/11/2013
Monday 4 November 2013
Drama Outside Court After Verdict: Case 118/13 Penampang Native Court
Case: Hubungan Sulit ( Having a secret relation )
First hearing: 20/6/2013
2nd hearing: 19/8/2013
Final hearing and verdict:2/10/2013
Plaintiff testimony: Wife AAN submitted to the court a file of evidence including letter from husband seeking a divorce, sms in cellphone and photographs.
She testified that she and husband married at St Michael's Church Penampang (solemnised by Fr. Chung) after 3 years of engagement.
They have 3 male children, all were present in court during the first hearing.
When the husband went to work in Kuching Sarawak, the youngest son went to visit him and found an old girlfriend staying with him like a new wife and found photographs of them lying in bed together, which he took and gave to mum !
Back in KK, the wife stated that when she was hospitalised due to a kitchen accident, the husband did not even bother to visit her at the hospital.
Two children of the girlfriend now call her husband as "daddy" while he called the girlfried as "sayang" (darling)
This prompted the judge to ask the plaintiff, " what does your husband call you?" which she replied as " Angie ".
The judge suggested that she should have called her husband "darling" for a favourable response.
She emotionally asked the husband in court if he still consider her as a wife, and asked the court for a full settlement of the case in the Native Court Only.
In response, the defendant declared he understood the wife's testimony but disagrees with certain matters, however admitted a relationship with his old friend from their younger days.
However failing to visit the wife in hospital was due to being overoccupied with attending to his younger sister's engagement.
He also informed that he has given expenses to his children direct to their bank accounts.
He declared that his relationship with the girlfriend was long known by his wife and children.
As for the present whereabouts of his girlfriend, now he said he does not know.
The case was adjourned during the first hearing to summon the girlfriend as 2nd defendant.
During the 2nd hearing, the 2nd defendant did not turn up but send a male lawyer to represent her instead. The lawyer was practically scolded because as a lawyer, he should know that lawyers are not permitted in the Native Court and that all parties to the case must present their own cases.
At the final hearing, the 2nd defendant was present with her lawyer sitting at the public gallery. She claimed that she only had relation with the man after his marriages was deemed as ended, for which the judges asked her under what law she assumed that to have happened.
She then continued that only now she understood the real situation and proposed that both the husband and wife are reunited and she would withdraw even as just a good friend. On this the judge asked her what would she do if the man goes after her again? She promised the court that she would never have anything to do with the man and his family again.
She denied the existence of a secret relation between herself and the man, however the judges commented how does she explain the photograph of them lying on the same bed and same pillow?
After a 15 minutes recess, the three judges came back to the court to announce their verdict.
They found both the defendants guilty of Hubungan Sulit and fine the husband to pay a Sogit totalling RM4000.00 consisting of:
1 buffalo or RM1500 to the wife
1 pig or RM500 to each of the sons totalling rm 1500
1 court cost of RM 1000.00
The 2nd defendant was given a lighter sentence with just a court cost of RM500.00
(most probably for her declaration that she would have nothing to do with the man anymore)
All fines to be paid the the court within 14 days or otherwise face 1 month jail.
The man did not seemed to mind the Sogits but protested loudly that the judges has recorded the girlfriend as admitting there was a "hubungan sulit" when she has strongly denied it. The judges responded that this is the official term used by the court for this case and if he is not satisfied, he can go fill a form and appeal to the District Officer.
( The man seemed to have forgotten that in his own testimony, he ADMITTED he had a secret relationship with his old girlfriend)
When the lawyer for the girlfriend tried to say something, he was told to shut up by the judges. ("Kau diam" was the exact words)
After the proceedings was completed and the judges have left the court, some minor drama occurred.
First the wife was hugging a young unidentified man trying to calm him of taking a swing at the husband but in the process she fell down and banged against the wooden wall of the court room, luckily without any harm.
Outside the courtroom, the young man was heard shouting at the husband in bahasa malaysia something like, " sikit sikit kau cakap mau pigi polis, saya pun polis juga" ( loosely translated, always threatening that he will go to the police, well I am a policeman too )
Then another unknown woman was heard screaming at the girlfriend or mistress in English on top of her voice " I have warned you......."
( I can only assumed that she is a relative who is scolding the girlfriend for not listening to her advice of avoiding a relationship with a married man, which has now given a bad name to the family )
Even one of the judges was shocked at this commotion outside his chamber and came out commenting to this reporter, that he has not shown his Kuntau ( self defence technique) yet if those guys continued with the disturbances outside his office (chamber).
=========================
Moral of this factual event ?? Well, I will leave that to all of your readers. he he he he
Wednesday 30 October 2013
Penampang Native Court case no. 102/13 verdict date 8-7-2013
Small drama outside court after the verdict
Two elderly housewives and sisters (IM and SM) continued to have a spat outside the native court even after the verdict was given by the native judges.
These two sisters live in the same village as this blogger.
The Offence: Causing Fear and Threatening to commit harm
Verdict: The younger sister and defendant was found guilty as charged.
The judge informed that under Part2 Section 7 of the Native Courts Enactment, the maximum fine for this offence are:
1. Sogit of two buffaloes (RM1500 each)
2. RM 500 court cost
Failure to pay would be fined another RM300 and 1 month jail, and failure to pay this additional fine would incur further fine of one buffalo and another month jail.
However, the judge said the court is very considerate and humanitarian since the case is between two elderly sisters and fine the defendant only RM500 in court cost to be paid within 14 days.
He strongly advised both families to have a family party to patch things up and even commented further that being a family and elderly, they should always help one another in times of needs.
Also present in court was the Village Headman or Ketua Kampong.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The argument started just because a grandchild of the elderly sister delivered a bottle of "montoku" or rice wine as requested by the younger sister's husband.
In the heat of the argument, the defendant had threatened to use her husband's shotgun to shoot somebody. The exact words as testified was "Saya tembak kau ".
One witness was the son-in-law of the plaintiff who is an indonesian.
Both the defendant and her son denied touching the gun but the son admitted hearing his mum yelling "saya tembak kau" ( I will shoot you).
Despite the gun was never touch, still the 5 policemen in two squad cars turned up to the house and took away the gun while advising the parties to make a police report.
Despite saying sorry during her own testimony, the defendant could not accept being fined making the judge retort that if she is not happy, she can go and appeal to the District Officer by filling a form at the clerical section of the Native Court. Until today it is not known if she did.
Although a simple case, the hearing still took 2 days starting from 14th June 2013 with several witnesses.
==============================================
Moral of the case: Family should stick together and help one another even in the modern world instead of arguing over nothing. Also elderly parents have tendencies to be short tempered and intorelant probably due to ill health, therefore the children should understand and learn to take control over the situation and seek professional help if necessary.
Tuesday 29 October 2013
Penampang Native Court Case 379/11 verdict date 27/3/2013
PENAMPANG NATIVE COURT VERDICT
Case No. 379/11, Date: 27 March 2013
Issue: Wife had secret sexual relation with another man or in Bahasa Malaysia "Hubungan Sulit" or in Kadazan "Mianu - anu"
The husband CG as plaintiff testified during an open hearing on 7/3/2013 at the Penampang Native Courtroom ( groundfloor Mini Secretariat Building) that: -
1. His wife had a secret relation with another man resulting in the birth of a third child which is definitely not his
2. He and wife have not lived together for 5 years due to irreconcilable differences.
3. He has been away working in Tawau for the last 3 years
4. He had continuously paid maintenance for his two daughters through the bank account of his mother in law, and the daughters are staying with his wife.
5. He was informed between Aug and Sept 2012 that his wife gave birth to another child and was confirmed by his mum in law and he does not know the surname of the child while his wife admitted that the child is not his.
6. He does not know the present occupation of his wife since she does not treat him as her husband any longer.
7. He cannot accept the circumstances and will divorce his wife after the Native Court has disposed this case.
In response, the wife SJ simply admitted the statement by the husband as true, and that the child has no surname, but being raised by her as a single mother, and that she is in the process of getting a birth certificate through the National Registration Dept.
The second defendant, the other man also admitted that his secret relation lasted for 7 months, and did not receive the earlier summons by the native courts and also did not know that the woman was married.
DL admits he is a sino-kadazan and is aware of the customary laws of the natives.
After 20 days the native court announced their verdict: -
1. Both defendants were guilty of "mianu-anu" under Section 10/3 of the native courts ordinance
2. The 2nd defendant (the other man) have to pay a "sogit" (appeasement) of 2 buffaloes (or RM3000) to the plaintiff
3. Both defendant have to pay one buffalo (sogit) to the Ketua Kampung (village headman) or RM1500 to be spent by the ketua kampung for appeasement to the people of the village where this husband and wife used to live (practically they have a small party at the village community centre)
4. Both defendant pays court cost as follows
first defendant RM500, second defendant RM1000
5. The wife also pays sogit to her two children a total of RM500.
In summary, the other man had to pay a higher sogit totalling RM5000, while the wife have to come up with RM1500 only.
Payment must be made within 14 days to the Native Court, in default the wife can be jailed 1 to 2 months while the other man (2nd defendant) can be jailed 2 to 6 months.
The judge also warned the wife that until a formal divorce is finalised, she is still the wife and if she commits the same offence again, the sogit will be doubled.
******************************************
Moral of the case, all non-moslem men in Sabah better don't fool around with somebody's wife unless you are 100 percent sure she is free to marry again. !!
Note: applies to non-moslems only since moslems are under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. However the native court may still hear cases if one party is still a native and non-moslem.
Sunday 27 October 2013
Announcement of Blog Opening
Dear Readers,
I am just learning to do this blogging stuff. I have done some trial blog accounts in blogspot before but suddenly and without reason my account was terminated so I was grossly disappointed with the site.
Since google has this blogger facility and there seems to be an invitation, so I just try this out.
Also the contents of my future reports will be mostly stories from the Native Courts of Penampang open hearings which should be interesting to all natives of Sabah.
I will not mention names of plaintiffs and defendants but will refer to them with initials or labels because it is the case problems and how the native court judges (or WKAN and KAN) solves these people's made problems and the processes involved that is more interesting and may help all our local populations in future.
The structure of the Native Courts is as follows:
Head: District Officer
Also serves as the first point of appeal if there is disatisfaction from the ruling by the Native Court.
Chief of Native Court Judge: Ketua Anak Negeri (KAN)
Members under him are called Wakil Ketua Anak Negeri (WKAN)
Also every Village Chief or Ketua Kampongs are considered members of the native court systems and they are usually called to attend the court hearings if the people involved comes from his village
At the time of writing, all members of the Native Court system are appointed through the politically elected members of the State Legislative Assembly or YBs as they are locally referred to and hence the Native Court is under the state administration as provided for in the Native Courts Ordinance that was introduced by the British Colonial Government.
That is all for now, if there are factual errors in my interpretation, you are all welcomed to comment.
Ozziewozzie, Penampang
Note: the 2007 is the year I first opened a youtube account and the name have now got stucked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)