draft Wed 3rd Aug 2016
PENAMPANG. The Native Court here said any agreement or understanding
even amongst family members should be properly done in writing and witnessed by
competent person. The panel of judges District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native
Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Jeffrey Lajanty said some of the
documentary proofs submitted by five siblings in dispute over an inherited
family home were not convincing.
A mediation hearing has been carried out in chambers
however the siblings cannot reach any compromised leading the case to be heard
in open court.
According to the plaintiff who is the only male in the
family, their father had left an instruction in writing drafted by one of his
sisters stating that his house shall remain as a family home and available to
any of the siblings in need of a home in future. The letter was signed but not
witnessed by anyone.
Problems arose when another sister who is the third in
the family and had stayed there most of the time, sold the house to a third
party without the agreement or knowledge of the rest of the siblings for RM58
thousand.
It was also established that the house is built on native village reserve where they do not have
a title to the lot and a native in need is allowed to build a house there
subject to the approval of the Village Chief, District Chief and District
Officer as the trustees. Hence the order was for the seller to return the money
and the house be returned to all the siblings.
The plaintiff also told the court that he had stayed in
the house for 10 years but the sister who is now the defendant had chased him
and his wife out even though the house has 3 big rooms. He also alleged that
the sister threw out all the photos of their parents into the store and he only
managed to salvage the photo of their mother. He also informed that he had been
staying in quarters provided by his employer at Tawau and Sipitang until his
retirement in 2010.
In Chambers, the defendant informed that she has only
RM37 thousand left as the rest were spent and wanted the rest of the siblings
to pay the balance for the return of the house, however this was strongly
disagreed by the rest as the sale of the house was without their knowledge.
When told that the court will make their own decision if
the siblings cannot compromise, the plaintiff responded that he will appeal if
he finds it too heavy.
In her testimony the defendant admitted selling the house
for the said sum but now wants the rest to pay 50% of the cost for the return
of the house. However she is willing to abide by the decision of the court on
the amount. She claimed to have stayed in the house for 50 years and the rest
did not care she has spent her own money maintaining the house. When asked why
she sold the inherited family house, she said it was subjected to constant
flooding.
Her daughter also stood up in defence submitting her own
statutory declaration that her uncle the plaintiff had sent her a phone message
offering RM20 thousand to get the house back. This evidence was deemed weak by
the court as the text messages can be edited before printing.
The daughter also submitted the ASB account book where the
remaining amount of the money is kept and the court found that the balance left
is now only RM30,100.00.
The sister who drafted the father’s letter was permitted
to speak. She said she had warned her sister against selling the house
otherwise it will reach the courts as she also knew the wishes of their father.
She had also talked to the defendant’s children against selling the house but
later told by other people that the house was sold. She said only minor repair
works was done including an extension for a kampung sundry shop.
After a ten minutes break for discussion by the panel of
judges, the verdict was announced.
The court found that the house was a heritage from their
parents but the land lot belongs to the government, all siblings have equal
rights to the house and the defendant did spend some money maintaining the
house. Hence the defendant shall pay RM30,000 and the rest to be borne by the
siblings. The village chief shall ensure the house is returned to the family.
This shall be carried out within 14 days. However any party not satisfied can appeal to
the District Native Court within 60 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment