AT THE NATIVE COURT OF APPEAL KOTA KINABALU = First case, the native dowry still not paid even after the couple already divorced.

 drafted Fri January 15, 2016

• KOTA KINABALU. The Native Court of Appeal here rejected the plea by a man identified in court only as Ramli who was appealing the decision of both the Native Court and District Native Court of Keningau.  He was ordered by the lower courts to pay the dowry and wedding expense totalling RM13,000 for his son’s wedding to the daughter of Philip, the respondent.

   

  Ramli was pleading to have the amount reduced because according to him many problems had crop up.  The girl was married before and now she is married to another person after she and his son were divorced. As for the non-appearance of the son in the hearing, Ramli said he is currently studying in Kuala Lumpur and he is representing himself and his son. Both the appellant and respondent chose to present their cases without the service of Native Court lawyers.

   

  However, Chief Judge Tan Sri Richard Malanjum presiding together with District Chief William Majimbon (Kota Kinabalu) and Native Chief Cyril Jalong (Keningau) affirmed the views of the Native Court that what happened before and after the time that the couple were married were irrelevant to the case.

   

  The judge also said all the papers were in order and the agreement signed by all parties and the birth certificate of the first child is surnamed after the appellant’s son. He therefore rebuked the appellant saying that the customary “adat” and “berian” shall be taken seriously emphasizing that a daughter is not a vehicle that one can just take out for a test drive.

   

  When the appellant started pleading about his affordability to pay, the court gave him 6 months time to pay even in instalment which was agreed by the respondent. However if Ramli failed and Philip again submit a complaint to the court, the appellant and his son face three months jail time.

   

  The judge concluded the case by advising both families to reconcile and even suggested they share a taxi home.

   

  Meanwhile there were three other cases but were postponed due to different reasons.

  In the first case, the appellant’s lawyer requested time to study the court documents which she claimed only having received around noon when the hearing was set at 2:30 in the afternoon.

  This earned the displeasure of the judge who directed the court officers to create a simple procedure or SOP where the appellant counsel shall prepare the court docket and serve it on the other party well before the hearing date. He added that the time of the judges as well as the parties who came all the way from Tamparuli should not have been wasted.

   

  In the second case, the respondent failed to appear hence the judge again queried the court staff if the summons have been properly served.

   

  The last case involved a District Chief who was submitting an issue which court can hear an appeal regarding the validity of a Native Certificate. Apparently the appeal has been heard in civil court which decided the Native Court is the authority to hear the appeal.

  The judge postponed the case to March this year to give time for all the counsels to study the issue, including the counsel from the State Attorney.