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.
No comments:
Post a Comment