NATIVE COURT CASE AT MENGGATAL - LAND DISPUTE

 DRAFTED:  WED 19 AUG 2015

KOTA KINABALU. The Native Court here rejected a charge of encroachment into his land by a farmer against his neighbour at a village in Menggatal. The panel of judges presided by District Chief William Majimbon , Native Chiefs Biniau Mabin @Rocky and Lunsin Anjah said the land in question still have no title and hence is a government land.

 

The plaintiff is claiming the land based on his application for a CL title while the defendant and his late father had cultivated the land based on LA or Land Application receipts.

 

The court ordered both parties to pay court cost of RM100 each. Since both have interest on the land the court opined that the ownership issues should be settled by the Lands and Survey Department. The defendant was advised to submit his application based on the Native Customary Rights of the Land Ordinance and it would be up to the Land Utilisation Committee (LUC) with feedbacks from the village chief.

 

The unanimous decision was made at a native courtroom within the Menggatal Community Centre.

 

According to the facts of the case, the plaintiff claimed that he had planted rubber trees which were chopped down by the defendant. He had applied for a CL title and already surveyed by a private land surveyor whose office is at Penampang. However the application cannot proceed as the defendant had disputed the ownership. The plaintiff admitted that the defendants father had given money for funeral expenses in exchange of the LA receipts but later signed a statutory declaration SD that he has no objection on the plaintiff’s land application.

 

The court queried why the plaintiff have to bring the defendant’s father all the way from Menggatal to Kota Kinabalu in April 1990 to see a magistrate at the town council without first consulting their own village chief to prepare this SD.

The same issue was also rebutted by the defendant who said his father could not read or write and signed with his thumb print. Anything he signed should have been witnessed by a family member.

 

The defendant said base on the LA that was given by his father, he had continue to cultivate the vacant land all these while and the plaintiff has only planted a few rubber trees all of which are still there proving he had lied when he accused him of cutting them down.

 

The defendant also produced four witnesses including a former village chief. All made statements saying they do not know about the land dispute but had known that both the defendant and his father have been cultivating the land all their lives and naming the crops that were planted including padi, rubber and fruit trees.

 

The court also informed any party who is not satisfied with the decision can appeal to the District Native Court within 60 days.