Friday 15 January 2021

AT THE NATIVE COURTS IN 2016

 Fri Dec 30,  2016


An attempt to challenge the integrity of the Native Court this year by means of judicial review failed when Kota Kinabalu High Court Judge Ravinthran Paramaguru dismissed the application citing two main issues in his oral judgement.
 
The Native Court as first respondent has acted well within its jurisdiction when hearing a land dispute case on a native titled land where the parties were natives.
The plaintiff at the native court as second respondent had made a proper application within the court processes.
The case centred on ownership of land which has been transferred to a relative to apply for a housing loan, in return for subdividing the land later into two lots where the lot with the house will be his while the other will be returned to the original owner. It takes a few years to pay a loan and meanwhile the verbal agreement got forgotten and many believed the name that appears on the land title is the legal owner of the land. The Native Court instead relies on the facts of the case and although there was no written agreement, several witnesses were still alive with consistent testimonies as well as documentary proof such as an application for subdivision already registered with the Land and Survey Department. The defendant claimed his father has bought the land for a pittance of 500 ringgit with a hand written receipt but the date was prior to the application for subdivision which defied plain common sense.
The Native Court ordered the smaller lot belong to the defendant while the larger lot belongs to the plaintiff citing “what was borrowed should be returned”.  The defendant appealed to the District Native Court right up to the Native Court of Appeal but was summarily dismissed. Worthy to note the defendant never cited the jurisdiction of the Native Court during his two appeals but only after exhausting the native court was this issue raised in the Judicial Review. Either his lawyer was just trying his luck or never read Sabah State laws.
The Land Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 68) on sub-division of titles Section 40 (3) clearly states, “In the absence of agreement between the parties the question of partition shall be decided, in the case of Native Titles by the Native Court and in other cases by the Collector in accordance with rules hereunder.”
There are many other state ordinances that empower the Native Court on their jurisdictions while at the Native Court of Appeal in 2015, High Court Judge Douglas Primus as presiding judge told a lawyer that “If the Native Court had decided that a native land belongs to so and so, the Civil Court or any other court  has no business interfering with that decision”.
The plaintiff, a retired female clerk for this landmark case sadly passed in May 2016 missing the decision in her favour but the heir to her estate had vowed to continue fighting for her, just in case the defendant keeps appealing to the highest court of the land
 
This case also triggered similar cases being filed in the Native Court. Another homestead by  the bank of Moyog river was also transferred to a brother in law for the purpose of loan but later on claim the whole piece now belongs to him while a sister in law only owns the old family home but not the site of the building. The land belongs to the mother and according the native custom, the inheritance should pass on to the sisters.  The husband of one sister trying to be the lord of the land irked the Native Court that the bench told him he was only “tumpang gembira” or enjoying the benefits of his wife’s inherited land. In chamber mediation, he was told to give just the piece on which the house is built but refused. In the full hearing, the Native Court instead decided that the land must be equally divided in half and chided the man saying there is no such thing as a house without a land.
Court staff also informed that appealing for the sake of appealing would incur further penalty as they claimed there is a precedence where the greedy ended up losing all his share of the land.
 
These land dispute cases show the Native Court will be more relevant in future since the natives are growing in number while the size of land is the same or decreasing, hence there will be tendencies even for close relatives to swindle land from their own family.  The court judges had therefore kept reminding the natives to put into writing any agreement or even small arrangement and be witnessed by the Village Chief to be recognised by the Court.
The Native Court is expecting similar cases to be filed as publicising these cases had opened a can of worms.
 
Relating to land, the Native Court had decided that it is illegal to sell houses built on native village reserve as the land does not belong to the house owner but the trustees who are Village Chief, District Chief and the District Officer. Village reserves are meant for natives who really have no land to build a home and subject to the approval of the trustees and conditions as stated in government gazette.
 
There were two prominent case of matrimonial offences where both the offending couples were fined a total sogit (customary penalty) of RM17,000.00 in monetised value setting a record. The offences committed in both cases were really similar. The wife and lover not only had illicit intercourse or “mianu-anu” resulting in another baby but the lovers were also guilty of enticing and taking away another man’s wife. The Native Courts Enactment 1992/1995 Section 10 for mianu-anu exact a penalty 3 buffaloes while Section 18 for taking away another man’s wife will incur another 3 buffaloes. The children from the legal couple must also be given a sogit such as a pig valued around RM500 and court cost is RM1000.  With the price of one buffalo in Penampang at RM2500 each, the readers can carry out their own simple arithmetic.
 
The court ended in the year with an amusing case.  Another proposed subdivision of land of about 5 acres amongst eight siblings both male and female ended up in open hearing but the defendant, an elder brother kept refusing to come to court at least 4 times.  The court was at a point of issuing a warrant of arrest for him to appear in court. On 14th December, the defendant who was accused of not signing the proposed subdivision for unknown reasons finally appeared in court. In the dock he was chided for not respecting the court but was let off after giving several lame excuses. The court then showed him a copy of the proposed subdivision plan prepared by a surveyor submitted by his siblings. After examining the plan quietly he then informed the judges that he agreed with the proposal, thus giving an anti-climax to the hearing.
The District Chief then reminded the whole family present to maintain family harmony and with the quick settlement of their case, they should have the most joyful Christmas party this year.
 
 

NATIVE COURT PENAMPANG ALSO BRINGS CHRISTMAS CHEERS TO THEIR ELDERLY MEMBERS

 Tue 20 Dec 2016


PENAMPANG. In the Christmas season of joy, the Native Court here has not forgotten their members who are elderly or weak due to illness. Led by District Chief Bryan Matasing, they visited seven of their members including village chiefs and Native Chief assistant bringing a small gift and prayers. The court staff here also formed their own community leaders associations and they also sang one carol for every visit as most of them have been in carolling group in their youths.
WKAN William Sikui Molijip from Kandazon was moved by the surprise visit and said he missed coming to court to assist in giving service to the people because the court is not about trials and hearings but most of their unreported duties are helping the native communities solve general administrative and those pertaining to their cultures and adat. – by Oswald Supi

Pix 1.  WKAN William Sikui in wheelchair surrounded by court staff in red, the colour of Christmas

Pix 2.  Datin Veronica Lojitum, Village Chief of Penapah Kondis next to hamper with husband Datuk Thomas Majanil.

Pix 3. Village Chief Bestan John of Ramaya seated next to hamper

Pix 4. Village Chief Sylvester Komilus seated next to hamper

Download all attachments as a zip file

KK high Court: Land mark case: Judicial Review of Native court land case

 draft: Tue 13 Dec 2016


KOTA KINABALU. In a landmark case yesterday, the High Court here dismissed a judicial review application against the Native Court with regards to a native land dispute originating from Penampang.
Judge Ravinthran Paramaguru in his decision held that the judicial review action sought by Clarence Sipain Mojingol should be dismissed on two issues in his open court judgement;
 
·         The Native Court as first respondent has acted well within its jurisdiction hence no reason for the judicial review
 
·         The second respondent who was the plaintiff at the Native Court Villette@Mathilda Azulu had made a proper application within the court process.
 
Sadly Villette was only represented by her sister in law during the verdict as she has passed away on 4th May and her only brother as sole heir to her properties, had decided to continue her case.
Close relatives and friends are sure her multi appearance in court after two appeals in native court, one eviction hearing at session court and the judicial review had taken a toll on her health even though she had effectively won in five out of six hearings.
 
The court hearings began in 2013.  A relative Celestina Gilong who had built a house on lot 2 of a land in Ramaya Penampang was suddenly given an eviction notice even though she had been staying there for 20 years with full permission of the owner.  Villette and another cousin were to inherit Lot 2 while lot 1 was given free of charge to a cousin Stephen Sipain in return for processing the subdivision of the land. However the cousin had been holding the land title all these while as he needed the whole title for a housing loan.
The name in the land title was changed to Stephen for the purpose of the loan and lot 2 was supposed to be returned after subdivision.  All agreements were verbal based on family trust as per native customs years ago. When the parents of Villette died, Stephen transferred the land to his son Clarence and applied for a new title so names of former owners are no longer seen.
 
On realising what had happened to the land, Villette filed a summon at the Native Court with Clarence Mojingol as defendant and the hearing begun in September 2013.  On 15 Nov 2013 the Native Court decided in her favour ruling that Lot 1 belongs to Clarence while Lot 2 shall be returned to the rightful owners.
 
The defendant filed an appeal to the District Native Court presided by the District Officer.  While waiting for the verdict of this court in 2014, the defendant has already sold the land to a third party and was able to remove the caveat put on the land title. Later the District Native Court decision was made affirming the decision of the Native Court.
The defendant then filed an appeal to the Native Court of Appeal at Kota Kinabalu.  Villette presented her own case without a lawyer and in August 2015, the Native Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without requiring any rebuttal from Villette.  Hence she thought it was all over only to be given a notice of Judicial Review as second respondent.  This was followed with more trips to KK High Court until she passed unexpectedly in May.
 
Meanwhile from 2014 onwards she became good friends with Ms Ogina who was also fighting for her father’s land against the same group of adversaries and hence both ladies frequently appeared in court together.
Ogina and her father also won their case.
 
In July this year while waiting for the Judicial Review to be settled, the lawyers acting for Clarence attempted to evict Celestina from Lot 2 across the main road by sending a court bailiff and a house moving truck. Her son refused to entertained them saying he is waiting for a reporter before giving any answers. The eviction team went away leaving just the eviction notice from a different session court hearing.
 
After the dismissal of this Judicial Review, Villettes family are waiting another two weeks if they have to continue fighting up to the Courts of Appeal.  Meanwhile the “new owner” of lot 2 has already started building workers quarters on the land that for years have not been returned to the rightful owners.

Counsels Richard Vitales appeared for Villette, Gilbert Bulagang for Review Applicant and State Attorney for Native Court.

 
Photo 1:  Late Villette and Ogina outside the KK High Court in October 2015
Photo 2: Lot 2 on left and Lot 1 (right)  of the land at Ramaya.

PENAMPANG NATIVE COURT WORKSHOP ON COURT PROCEEDINGS

 news draft:  Fri 9 Dec 2016


Two deputy registrar and one translator, all ladies from Kota Kinabalu High Court conducted a workshop for the Native Court of Penampang judges and staff on Preparation of Notes of Proceedings and Grounds of Judgements. This is to enhance the services of the Native Court and a follow-up of a seminar held at Kaiduan Papar on 19 September this year. During their discussion, the procedures of the court is considered of high standard, however  lacking in support staff and tools such as computer system to record the proceedings during a trial.

Pix from right: Jessica Pius (translator), Rosliah Abdul Ramlan and Elsie Primus (deputy registrars), District Chief Bryan Matasing and the rest of his court staff.  - by Oswald Supi


 
 

DEFENDANT TOLD TO PROVE HE WAS HAVING A MEDICAL TREATMENT

 draft:  Mon 28 Nov 2016


PENAMPANG. The Native Court here conducted a preliminary hearing of a land dispute here in the absence of the defendant whose wife called just before the hearing saying her husband is seeking treatment at a polyclinic.
The court also chided the plaintiff for coming to court unprepared, unable to answer simple factual questions and had to send a sibling to get the file from their car.
The case revolved around 7 siblings all from Kg Kibabaig who applied for a land subdivision a year ago but ran into a problem when the defendant refused to sign the subdivision proposal. He was the same person who had refused to attend the court hearing twice. Another sibling who is currently at Lahad Datu also rang to question why his name was not included.
 
The past records found in the files of the siblings showed the Schedule 1, 2 and 3 of the Native Land processes was initiated on 28 Oct 1985 by the mother of the siblings who was not present in court while their father had already passed.
 
Hence the panel consisting of District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Head Charles Ebol adjourned the case to be heard again on 13 December at 9 am with two orders.
 
  • The mother of the siblings be given a subpoena to give clarifications pertaining to the previous applications of the Schedules,
  • The defendant shall bring along the evidence that he was getting a medical treatment during the hearing today, Monday.


DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT DOES NOT RECOGNISE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF HOUSE IN VILLAGE RESERVE

 draft: Mon 31 Oct 2016


PENAMPANG. The struggle by a retiree to get back the family home sold by a sister without permission from the rest of the family, entered a second phase after the Native Court here had settled the case in August this year.
Previously, the Native Court had found the house as heritage of their parents where all the siblings have equal rights. However the land lot belongs to the government as it lies within a village reserve where the trustees are the Village Chief, District Chief and District Officer.
The court had ordered the house to be returned by the buyer to the family where the purchase price of RM58,000 will be refunded, RM30,000 to be paid by the sister who sold it and the rest to be paid by the other siblings.
The buyer is not staying in the house but renting it out to foreigners after carrying out minor repairs.
He had refused to comply with the court’s order and was summoned to a hearing in chamber but refused to accept the refund claiming he had already spent a lot on repairs.
 
Testifying in the dock as plaintiff, the retiree said he is ready with the full refund as per the chamber hearing. He said it was not fair to him to pay any additional amount because the buyer had been renting the house for RM700 per month and was repeatedly told by himself and the village chief not to carry out any works on the house when it was under dispute in court. He also claimed the buyer as defendant continued to modify the house despite being ordered to stop by the court during the chamber hearings.
The plaintiff concluded by asking the court to order the defendant to vacate the house and be locked with the keys surrendered to the court and all utility bills paid in full. He said if the defendant disagreed he will still continue to claim his rights on the house.
At this time a member of the gallery interrupted and requested to say something but was strongly admonished and warned by the bench that no one else is allowed to speak except the parties to the case, otherwise he would be thrown out of the courtroom.
 
In his defence the buyer said he is still representing his wife who actually signed the purchase agreement of the house as was the case in chambers. He claimed the house is legally his having bought it from the previous owner and claims no other people owned the house. As he had spent lots on repairs he would not accept just the original purchase price.
When asked by the court if he knows that government land cannot be bought or sold, he kept silent.
He instead submitted a bunch of his repair bills amounting to RM12,000.
Upon examining the bills on the spot, the bench told the defendant that the previous case was settled in August and court staff together with their own valuation expert had inspected the house and defendant told to return the house to the previous owner. The bench said all the bills submitted are dated in September. The defendant was then told that without the approval of the trustees, the sale of the house and land is not valid as it was against the law. However the defendant maintained his stand of not accepting the refund of RM58,000.
 
The plaintiff was then recalled and asked if he accepted the court’s valuation of repair works done up to August when the inspection was made with an amount of RM1280 only. After requesting for consultation with members of his family, he told the court he is willing to pay the extra amount.
After the plaintiff has signed his amended statement, the court announced a 20 minute break for the panel to discuss their verdict.
 
The judges comprising District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Jeffry Lajanty then came back to the court to announce their verdict: 
 
1.  The Native Court does not recognise the sale and purchase of the house without the approval of the trustees
 
2.  The Court still give consideration by ordering the return of the purchase price to the buyer
 
3.  The Courts evaluation of repair work done upon site inspection including fences, gate and roof amounted to RM1,280.
 
4.  The plaintiff will now refund RM59,280 within 14 days of the verdict and the buyer has also 14 days to accept.
 
5.  The house must be vacated within 14 days, locked and the keys surrendered to the court via the village chief.
 
6.  Any party not satisfied with the verdict has 60 days to appeal to the District Native Court
 
 
 
In closing the case, Matasing told the parties that although the court does not recognise the sale of the house, they are still sympathetic and tried to correct the mistakes by ordering the refund.
He advised both parties be calm and reconsider their follow up action to ensure the matter is settled.
 

ANOTHER MIANU ANU COUPLE FINED RM7000 AFTER ENDING AFFAIR

 draft:  Tue 23 Aug 2016


PENAMPANG. A woman from Kg Sugud won a case against her husband who had a secret affair with another woman at the Native Court here. The husband who originated from Kudat and his lover from Kota Marudu were fined a total of RM7000 where the husband as first defendant has to pay RM4725 while RM2275 shall be paid by the second defendant.
 
The panel of judges District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Marcus K. Jonioh and Village Chief Charles Ebol found the husband and lover guilty of “mianu-anu” (illicit intercourse) under Section 10 of the Native Courts Enactment 1992/1995 where the maximum “sogit” ( customary penalty)  is two buffaloes however the court imposed one buffalo (RM2500) in consideration that the lovers have separated afterwards.
Under the same Section 10, another buffalo (RM2500) shall be given as appeasement for the village of the wife and a court fine of RM1500.
In addition since the woman and husband already had three children, the “sogit” for them would be three pigs however the court considered and imposed only one 50kg pig (RM500) for all three.
 
According to the facts of the case which was initially heard in chambers last year, both the defendants have admitted to their illicit relationship but later mutually agreed to end the affair.
 
In default of the penalties, the first defendant faces 6 months jail while the second defendant who was not present in court for the verdict faces 4 months.
 

Consistent with the procedures of the court, both defendants have 14 days to pay the penalties or can appeal to the District Native Court within 60 days.

 
 

KIBABAIG RESIDENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

 draft Wed 17 Aug 2016


PENAMPANG. The Native Court here ordered a resident of Kg Kibabaig to be arrested by the Police for purposely ignoring a court summons to attend a hearing for the second time today Wednesday.
 
During the first hearing on 27 July 2016, the court was told that Mashul bin M. Tuguk refused to sign receipt of the summons. Following the court procedures, a second notice was delivered by a clerk on 11 Aug 2016 and his report was read out in the court. It said the defendant was not at home and his wife informed that he is at work in Lahad Datu. However the clerk managed to speak to him on the phone and his response was to give the letter to his wife who will submit it to his lawyer.
 
Hence presiding judge District Chief Bryan Matasing said the defendant is aware of this hearing but his action has elements of challenging the court and therefore in contempt. This court is helping to solve problem peacefully but the defendant is also wasting governments time and cost, he added.
 
The plaintiff Matthias Marcellinus from the same village who filed a case against the defendant for refusing to sign a proposed land subdivision, just have to be patient said the court.
 
In accordance with the Native Courts Enactment 1992, lawyers are not allowed to appear both at Native Court and District Native Court level but are allowed at the final Native Court of Appeal.
 
 

VERDICT OF OWNERSHIP OF SURVEY EQUIPMENT- PLAINTIFF WON

 draft: Tue 16 Aug 2016


PENAMPANG. The Native Court here again told the plaintiff and defendant in a dispute over the ownership of a land survey equipment to put in writing any agreement or arrangement even though amongst family members, when announcing their verdict.
 
The panel of judges comprising District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Michael Sigawal said after reviewing all their statements and documents submitted, they have reached a unanimous verdict without prejudice and gave an order:
 
The uncle as plaintiff is the rightful owner of the EDM or electronic measurement meter and must be returned by the nephew within 14 days after an expert has checked that the equipment is in good working order. At the same time the uncle must pay the RM3000 which he withheld from a joint project when the ownership dispute begun. They were ordered to carry this out in the office of one of the Native Chiefs.
 
However the defendant was warned he was nearly cited for contempt for including in his written submission prepared by his wife that included an allegation he was not given sufficient time by the court to state his side of the story. The court found his oral statement in the dock and his written submission were exactly the same with nothing new. Allowing them to submit a written submission also enabled both parties to submit whatever added information, said the court.
 
According to the facts of the case, the uncle from Kg Nosoob Baru claimed sole ownership after purchasing the EDM from a supplier through a third person who had facility to pay via instalment. The EDM cost RM16000 and was paid in four instalments where the last was paid on 11 March 2013. He had submitted copies of payment voucher and letter from the third person transferring ownership to the plaintiff all certified true copies by a magistrate. He had given the defendant full time to use it as the expert in carrying out freelance surveying and they shared the proceeds of projects that they worked on according to a verbal agreement. Their working relationship ended in November 2014 when the nephew moved to Menggatal and lost telephone contact.
 
However the defendant refuted the claim saying he resigned from his job to join his uncle with a promise he will be given the instrument to earn his living. He was present at the shop to choose the correct equipment to buy based on his expertise. He disagreed that the subject of paying for the EDM was never discussed, that he had paid for part of the cost from the payment from the projects but never kept any copies of the payment vouchers. He said the uncle had paid the third party and I had paid him but not in writing due family trust. He said the equipment is his only source of income at present.
 
After the verdict the nephew asked the court about the uncle’s promise to let him continue to use the equipment after the ownership dispute was determined by the court. Both were told to go and make a new agreement in writing this time.
The uncle also asked what about rental of the equipment during the 20 months the nephew was using it, but earned him a rebuke as he had never brought up the issue during the hearing.
The court then reminded them that any party not satisfied with the verdict can appeal to the District Native Court within 60 days.
 
 

LAND AT KK SO CANNOT BE HEARD AT PENAMPANG NATIVE COURT

 draft: Mon 15 Aug 2016


PENAMPANG.  The Native Court here adjourned indefinitely another land dispute case because the native land concerned was found to be under the jurisdiction of the Native Court of Kota Kinabalu.
A naturalised expatriate who had married a local had filed the case here because a sister-in-law refused to sign the subdivision proposal of an inherited native land.
His daughter is an anglo-kadazan and had to apply for a letter of confirmation that she is a native, where the native court here can and had approved as they are residing in the district.
She was supposed to inherit one of the subdivided lots but is delayed since the new titles can only be processed by the Land and Survey Departments after all the owners of the land have signed agreeing to the proposed subdivision plan.
When the hearing commenced District Chief Bryan Matasing informed the plaintiff and defendant that since the land is located under Kota Kinabalu, they will have re-apply for the case to be heard at the Kota Kinabalu native court.
 
Clarifying after the court hearing, Matasing informed that they are following the directives of the State Attorney and the relevant laws are Section 40(3) of the Land Ordinance Sabah Cap 68 read together with the territorial jurisdictions clearly stated in Native Courts Ordinance Sabah Cap 86.
He thanked the “Daily Express” for keeping the public informed so that the public would not waste their time going to the wrong court.
 
 

SECOND YOUNG COUPLE FINED MAXIMUM RM 17000 FOR ILLICIT INTERCOURSE

 draft Thu 4 Aug 2016

 

 

PENAMPANG. The Native Court here fined a second young couple within one week a total sogit (customary penalty) of RM17,000.00 for two offences against the Native Customary Laws.
 
Speaking from the bench, the panel of judges District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Charles Ebol said they imposed the fines in accordance with the Native Court Enactment 1992/1995 to instil awareness to the younger generation on the unhealthy trend of breaching their own native adat. “There are more couples coming to this court to divorce compared to getting married,” Matasing said.
 
The young lovers from Kg Nosoob Baru must pay the aggrieved party 2 buffaloes (RM5000), one buffalo for the appeasement of the village (RM2500), court fine RM1500, one pig sogit for the child (RM500)  adding to RM9500 under section 10 for “mianu-anu” (illicit intercourse).  The wife as first defendant pays 35% while her lover as second defendant shall pay 65%.  In default of fine under this section is 6 months jail for both.
 
The second defendant was also found guilty of enticing and taking away the wife of another man under section 18 and must pay another 3 buffaloes (RM7500) to the aggrieved party or in default another 18 months jail.
 
According to the facts of the case read out before passing the sentence, the young husband as plaintiff discovered that his wife with whom he has one daughter had another baby with another man he does not recognised after being told by his village chief and his mother. His wife had left their home after she had a domestic argument with her mother-in-law. The plaintiff claimed to have tried his best to contact her to return home but to no avail, at the same time he was transferred to Tawau.
 
Before the open court hearing on 19 July 2016, the Village Chief had also conducted his own investigative hearing where the lovers had admitted sleeping together like husband and wife both at her parent’s house and at a rented apartment resulting in another baby. The parents of both the wife and her lover were aware of this illicit relationship, had admonished and warned them but were ignored.
 
In the dock, the first defendant admitted her conduct defending her actions saying she was chased out of her marital home by her mother-in-law after the domestic quarrel and have no more love for “all of them”, and is willing to face the Adat Laws. Her lover as second defendant said he was not aware that his girlfriend was married until three months later but then she was already carrying their love child. He said he loved her so much, wants to marry her and willing to go to jail for it.
 
The court reminded both the defendants they have 14 days to pay the fines, however any party who is not satisfied with the verdict can appeal to the District Native Court within 60 days.
 
Meanwhile, the construction of the Penampang Native Court building has recommenced after a new contractor Masijaya Sdn Bhd was appointed. The new expected completion date is 14 May 2017 as per photo.

SISTER SOLD FAMILY HOME WITHOUT PERMISSION

 draft Wed 3rd Aug 2016


RECORD RM17000 SOGIT FOR MIANU ANU AND TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE

 draft: Thu 28 July 2016