drafted Fri OCT 30, 2015
special case from Penampang
KOTA KINABALU. The second defendant in an alleged land
cheating case became a witness for the plaintiff in a surprise turn when he was
subpoenaed by the counsel for the plaintiff in a continuation hearing on Thursday
and Friday.
Testifying under caution of Section 132 of the Evidence
Act, Edward John Bruno Lojuta @ Tiwot said it was the third defendant Avictus
@Ronnie Lojuta who told him Oswald Sipain is the lawyer acting for Tan Sri
Richard Malanjum who will be buying the land.
Tiwot said it was Ronnie who asked him to bring 3 pieces
of blank paper for his uncle Anthony Lojuta to place the thumb prints and then
bring them together with the land title to see the lawyer who is now the fourth
defendant.
He testified that both Ronnie and Oswald knew that the
asking price was RM1.65 million but he does not recognise the first defendant
Clarence Sipain. He saw Ronnie submit the land title to the lawyer who then
kept it in the drawer.
At the lawyer’s office he was asked to sign 3 blank vouchers,
given RM50 thousand in cash as commission and told to wait outside the office
for ten minutes. “Afterwards Ronnie came out and asked me for a share of the
commission and I gave him RM15 thousand. Afterwards we were told to go home,”
he testified.
When asked by counsel why he trusted all these, Tiwot
answered Ronnie told him this was the directive of the Tan Sri. Under cross
examination Tiwot said he never cheated the plaintiff whom he regards as his
own father, instead both of them got cheated.
There were no questions from his own counsel when the
first defendant made his defence except to sign his witness statement. Under
cross examination Clarence Sipain agreed that there was no proper sales and
purchase agreement (S&P) and the Memorandum of Transfer (MOT) does not show
that he can pay by instalment nor does it show the balance can be paid after
the land title is transferred. He disagreed when suggested that he was unable
to pay the balance of the price as shown in MOT of RM500 thousand. He agreed
that he had paid RM50 thousand as deposit at the plaintiff’s bank in Donggongon
and that he never met the seller. He signed the MOT before his lawyer brother
and left all matters including payments for him to handle.
The fourth defendant Oswald Sipain only signed his
witness statement without any question from his own counsel. Under cross
examination he said he is well versed with S&P having been in practice for
17 years. He stated that his brother was keen to buy the land for RM500
thousand and can only afford in six instalments.
When asked to show where in the documents the plaintiff
agreed to be paid a part of the sum of RM500 thousand or to be paid RM50
thousand and that the title is to be transferred first before the full payment
is made, he answered “it does not show”.
He agreed his counsel never put to Tiwot as the agent of
plaintiff that the price is RM500 thousand and not RM1.65 million and the
payment by instalment when Tiwot was in the witness stand.
He agreed it is easy to print a transfer or MOT form from
a computer.
However he disagreed that the buyer was supposed to be a
Tan Sri and denied there was any commission mentioned.
He claimed having paid the plaintiff another RM100
thousand via Tiwot instead of direct to the plaintiff’s bank account but agreed
there is no letter of authority for Tiwot to receive this money.
When cross examined by the counsel for the State why no
S&P was prepared Oswald answered that it was a simple transaction and they
wanted it done expeditiously. It would take time to prepare the documents so
asked the second defendant to make the transfer to be done at the Penampang
PPHT.
He said he did not prepare the MOT form, his brother
signed in front of him and the plaintiff’s thumb print was not there when his
brother signed. Then the form was brought to the land office by the second
defendant.
The last witness cum fifth defendant took the stand in
the afternoon of the second day.
Ali Hussin bin Taha who was the Land Supervisor at
Penampang in 2013 when the MOT was registered testified that the Police had
confirmed the fingerprints on three of the documents belong to the plaintiff
Anthony Lojuta himself.
Under cross examination he stated it was Ronnie Lojuta
who brought in the documents and both plaintiff and first defendant did not
appear.
He did not see the thumb print being placed on the MOT
forms. He agreed that the correct procedure is for both transferor and
transferee to sign the MOT form before him.
He also said he faced many people every day and he knows
who was honest and who was not. It was Avictus Lojuta who told him the thumb
print belongs to the transferor and all the transaction including the payment
of RM50 thousand has been done at the office of the lawyer Oswald.
He agreed it was potentially risky in attesting a
signature when the person is not present and may have facilitated others in
cheating the plaintiff.
Under cross examination by defence counsel for first
defendant, Ali concluded that he had done his best to serve the public, his
action was done in good faith and just carrying out his duties.
The third defendant Avictus Lajuta@Ronnie Lojuta did not
register any defence papers nor made any appearance in court.
Counsels Marian and brother Dominic Ghani appeared for
the plaintiff, Bulagang and Co appeared for Clarence and his brother Oswald
Sipain, while Asiah Mohd Yusof from State Attorney appeared for Ali Hussin and
the State. Judge Ravinthran Paramaguru will give his judgement tentatively on 4th
December.
No comments:
Post a Comment