Penampang.
Plaintiff: LYS
Defendant: DL
both from kg Guunsing.
The Native Court here heard a suggestion by a 56 year old self-employed man for the defendant to go to some resorts and relax and calm himself in his retirement.
He was testifying before Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun who was assisted by two village chiefs.
The plaintiff said he know the man as a good person but now seemed to be behaving in a manner inconsistent with what he had assumed, because of his age.
The 71 year old retired civil servant had accused him of cutting down two mango trees and stealing two concrete culverts from his property which is about 150 metres from the plaintiff’s house.
The plaintiff then submitted several photographs to the court showing that the culverts are still lying on the defendant’s land and the house there supposedly belonging to the defendant’s sister is dilapidated and has been abandoned for about 8 years. He had brought the case to the native court for settlement as he has not done anything wrong while the accused seemed to be monopolising Kampung Guunsing and even known to have beaten other people. The police report made against him by the defendant is without basis and not relevant.
Inside the dock, the defendant claimed he is still waiting for the result of his police report and the case is also heard in the magistrate court which is also pending the police report. He said that he has no power to direct the police to speed up the investigation.
However, the court countered that he was already given 3 months previously to bring any feedback from the police regarding his complaint and during the third hearing, he had failed to turn up. The case had been pending for more than 5 months without any results.
The defendant tried to add that the plaintiff is a Sino without any Native Certificate but he was ticked off by the court as this is not relevant to the case before him.
The court then gave him one last chance within one month to get any feedback from the police to prove his accusation against the plaintiff failing which judgement can be made against him.
The court was adjourned until 10 July 2014.
CASE CONTINUED ON 10/7/2014 as scheduled. 9.15 am
Hearing continued before District Chief Bryan Matasing Lojingon
assisted by NC Andrew S Lidaun and KK Michael Sigawal
Defendant in the dock said that he failed to present any police investigation results to back up his allegations against the plaintiff.
Next Witness Inspector Mohd Najib as IO - IP Penampang Dept CID section. Serving in Sabah since April 2010
Regards to private complaint only received on 7 July 2013 from the defendant.
the original report made on 4 May 2013 which is rather aged in time.
the report was referred to a magistrate in Kk who have on 21 may 2013 ordered further investigation
Since he only received that order on 7 July 2014, time for me to make further investigation and produced a written report is short.
No police action done because the defendant who made the report himself cannot give any solid witnesses, clues or info as to who stole the goods from his house. Hence further investigation cannot be done without any clues if the plaintiff is the one who took the materials, goods etc
In good faith, my opportunity to investigate further due to time,
- no solid witnesses seing the theft
- time factor, theft occurred long time ago
- case is not a public interest, but personal interest since the goods dont have markings or serial number to trace.
Therefore up to the honourable court to make an appropriate decision since the two parties involved are locals.
Hence the court today makes an immediate decision which is unanimous based on NO witnesses by the defendant and all the informations said on court so far.
Under Part 2 Clause 6 of the MAN enactment 199'/1995 the defendant is found guilty for causing provocation.
Fined is one head of livestock or in default pay another RM500, jail not exceeding 1 month or BOTH. Pay the sogit which is one domestic PIG or both. The fine to be paid to the plaintiff.
Pay within 14 days or appeal within 60 days.
Defendant immediately told the court that he wish to appeal whereby the court said go and fill up a form. The court then adjourned the case.
Plaintiff inform that he too will sue for defamation at the session court in KK.
Case ENDS pending whatever actions both parties take.
CASE CONTINUED ON 10/7/2014 as scheduled. 9.15 am
Hearing continued before District Chief Bryan Matasing Lojingon
assisted by NC Andrew S Lidaun and KK Michael Sigawal
Defendant in the dock said that he failed to present any police investigation results to back up his allegations against the plaintiff.
Next Witness Inspector Mohd Najib as IO - IP Penampang Dept CID section. Serving in Sabah since April 2010
Regards to private complaint only received on 7 July 2013 from the defendant.
the original report made on 4 May 2013 which is rather aged in time.
the report was referred to a magistrate in Kk who have on 21 may 2013 ordered further investigation
Since he only received that order on 7 July 2014, time for me to make further investigation and produced a written report is short.
No police action done because the defendant who made the report himself cannot give any solid witnesses, clues or info as to who stole the goods from his house. Hence further investigation cannot be done without any clues if the plaintiff is the one who took the materials, goods etc
In good faith, my opportunity to investigate further due to time,
- no solid witnesses seing the theft
- time factor, theft occurred long time ago
- case is not a public interest, but personal interest since the goods dont have markings or serial number to trace.
Therefore up to the honourable court to make an appropriate decision since the two parties involved are locals.
Hence the court today makes an immediate decision which is unanimous based on NO witnesses by the defendant and all the informations said on court so far.
Under Part 2 Clause 6 of the MAN enactment 199'/1995 the defendant is found guilty for causing provocation.
Fined is one head of livestock or in default pay another RM500, jail not exceeding 1 month or BOTH. Pay the sogit which is one domestic PIG or both. The fine to be paid to the plaintiff.
Pay within 14 days or appeal within 60 days.
Defendant immediately told the court that he wish to appeal whereby the court said go and fill up a form. The court then adjourned the case.
Plaintiff inform that he too will sue for defamation at the session court in KK.
Case ENDS pending whatever actions both parties take.
