OZULU Vs MOJINGGOL Land Dispute NT 10893 Case No. 221/13

Case Title:  Land Ownership Dispute

Native Judges: WKAN Andrew Lidaun, Kg Kolopis
                          KK  Ationg Totu, Kg Mahandoi
                          KK  Michael Sikawah, Kg Tunoh

Dates: First Hearing: 3 Sept 2013, Plaintiff Testimony
            2nd Hearing:  24 Sept 2013, Defendant Testimony
                                    and relevant village headman testimony
            3rd Hearing: 10-10-2013, Testimonies of 4 plaintiff's witnesses
            Verdict Date: 15-11-2013

Plaintiff Representative: Violet Matilda Ozulu
Defendant                     :  Clarence Sipain Mojinggol

Verdict Summary:  The Native Court Decided in favour of plaintiff
Defendants reaction: Informed he will appeal the verdict within 60 days.

Plaintiff Testimony:
The intention of her submission was to claim a share of a customary land at Ramaya with rent 40 cts and area 0.78 acre and the former land title was NT 1043. This land was jointly owned by her father Ozulu Jouling and Jimain Malangin. Her mother is Livina Malangin who is the sister of Jimain.
(Ozulu is therefore the brother-in-law of Jimain and that explains why they jointly bought this piece of land from a previous owner)
Jimain's children who are also interested parties in this land are Joseph Mohd Jimain @ Jomani and Angeline Jimain (who were present in court)

In 1964, a first cousin of Jimain and Livina by name of  Stephen Sipain Mojinggol-SSM (defendant's father) begged both Ozulu and Jimain  for one lot sufficient to build a house on the said land.
Based on family affection, both owners agreed and no sale and purchase agreement was involved.
In order to build the house SSM needed a loan from Borneo Housing that required collateral. Since the land was in the name of the original owners, SSM requested that land title be changed to his name in for the purpose of a loan amounting to RM15K which was obtain on 24-9-1964.
Based on trust alone there was no written agreement and the remaining lot of the land is suppose to be returned to the owners after the loan was fully paid.
When the loan was settled, SSM himself took the initiative to hire a licenced surveyor and sumitted the plans for Lot 1 and Lot 2 which was approved by the PPHT (ACLR or Assistant Collector of Land Revenue in English) on 23 Sept 1978 and the District Officer at that time was Mr Simon Gonsilou.
The proposed subdivision was not carried out because the house built by SSM had encroached on a neighbouring land owned by Angeline Jimain.
Before this subdivision can be settled, the joint owners have died.
Jimain passed away on 15-11-1983 while Ozulu followed on 26-3-1984.

In the absence of the rightful owners, on 18-12-1984, SSM took the opportunity to transfer the ownership of the land to his son Clarence Sipain Mojinggol - CSM, without the knowledge of the family of the original owners.
Based on records on the land title, in 1986 CSM then charged this land for a loan of RM12K at Hongkong and Shanghai Bank for reasons known to him alone.
Base on his date of birth 4 Feb 1961, CSM was just 23y.o. when the land was transferred to him and charged it to the bank when he was 25 y.o.

When the judge asked why this land was never queried all these time, plaintiff informed that she telephone CSM younger brother who is a lawyer by the name of Oswald, and was told that the land title is in Kuala Lumpur because of some loan.

On 21st Jun 2013, CSM issued a notice to demolish a house in Lot 2 currently being occupied by a relative of the plaintiff, using the service of a legal firm Bulagang & Co.
The relative's name are Celestina Gilong and Simon Onggitom. They have built a small house on Lot 2 with approval and one-off token payment of RM3K, from Angeline Jimain and her late husband Johnny Bosuin who have been administrating the land since the original owners have died.

Another old house in Lot 2 currently occupied by Jomani Jimain Abdullah was demolished on 6-7-2013 without any notice. This house was already existing long before SSM built his house in Lot 1, and once belonged to the grandparents of Jomani.

In conclusion, plaintiff submited to the court for the return of only Lot 2 to the family of the original owners and hope that the dispute can be fully settled in this native court. She said that there is no claim on Lot 1 since what is given away by their parents shall be honoured.
(STATEMENT signed by Plaintiff)

DEFENDANT'S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

CSM stated the following:-

1. There was a proposed "combination and subdivision" not subdivision alone. Due to the proposed combination, it needed two land titles namely NT 4714 and NT 10893. This proposal was agreed.

2.  Lot 1 would then belong to Stephen Sipain Mojinggol while Lot 2 would belong to Jimain Malangin and Ozulu Jouling

3. This proposal was agreed and approved by the PPHT on 23-Sept-1976 and his late father engaged a professional surveyor in 1980

4. After the survey was completed, the land title for NT10893 was submitted to JTU for the purpose of subdivision but could not be carried out because the title for NT 4714 was not submitted for reasons I did not know. This land title is involved because the house built by his father was also occupying this land. (he did not say why or was that agreed to by the land owner of NT4714)

5. The land owner of NT 4714 was Jimain Malangin alone and he did not submit the title to JTU. After he died, request through lawyer to Angeline Jimain@ Binjumis to submit the title received no coorperation.

6. His father then withdrew the land title for NT 10893 from JTU after not getting any resolution.

7.  His younger brother Oswald Mojinggol went overseas to UK to study for a law degree, and the land title NT 10893 is now kept by the Yayasan Sabah as a security for a study loan hence the land title is still being used because the loan is not yet fully settled.

8.  The land was bought by my father and the proof is in a form of a receipt for payment of NT 10893 for an amount of 500 ringgit and the date of purchase is 19-5-1968. The receipt was signed by Jimain as recepient and witnessed by Mr Monjuil as witness (now deceased) for the sum of 500 ringgit. (not RM at that time)

9.  As for the contention by plaintiff that family affection was involved, it is not true as the land was bought for a price of 500 ringgit, please refer to the receipt

10.  In my knowledge, the other land NT4714 was sold by Angeline Jimain to one MR Vincent Benjamin Tamin for RM 50,000 on 23-2-2001.
I should be asked first before selling this land since I have vested interest in the said land since my house is also partially sitting on the land. As a family matter I should be informed of this sale but I only got to know in 2013.

11. Before this the plaintiff has put a caveat on the land NT 10893 for reasons I did not know but I succeeded in removing the caveat in 2012.
After removing the caveat, I proceeded to engage lawyers Bulangang & Co in order to defend my rights in Jun 2013 as owner of the land NT 10893.

12. This land was transferred to me by my father because I stood as guarantor for the Yayasan Sabah loan for my younger brother.

Thats all, statement signed.

STATEMENT BY  village chief Benedict Bestan John, KK of Ramaya

The Native Court then proceed to call opinions of the relevant village chief as he is part of the Native Court system.

1.  He said he knows about this land
2.  As far as he knows this land NT 10893 is owned by Jimain and Ozulu
3.  From the land title, there is no sale and purchase because a stamp to this effect is missing from the land title but confirms there was a loan from Borneo Housing
4. The name on the title was converted to SSM for the sole purpose of getting a loan but there was no written agreement since all were based on trust.
5. There is a subdivision for Lot 1 and Lot 2.
6.  SSM transferred the title to his son in 1984 without the knowledge of the family of Jimain and Ozulu.
7. There is evidence on the land title that it was charged to Hongkong Shanghai Bank for a loan that was paid in 3 years
8. A house in lot 2 which once belong to Malangin for so long was demolished by CSM in July 2013 before this court case was settled. I went to the site to request them not to demolish until the court has heard the case but I was totally ignored.
( end statement by Ketua Kampung)

The plaintiff was then told by the court that if she has witnesses for the next hearing to be held on 10-10-2013, then she must subpoena them through the court admin section.

THIRD HEARING: TESTIMONIES BY 4 PLAINTIFF WITNESSES

First witness: Clare John Bosuin (daugher of Angeline Jimain)

1. Disagreed that the land NT 10893 was sold as stated by the defendant
2. Reason: this customary land was only loan to SSM on Sept 7, 1964
3. The payment of 500 ringgit was only a token for one lot and also used to fill the Memo of Transfer form to change the name in the title to enable SSM to obtain a loan from Borneo Housing.
4. She read out a message from her mother, "Take Lot 1 which is yours and return Lot 2 to us because we are a family"
She explained that her mum have vocal problem testifying herself due to a recent stroke.

Second witness: Beatrice Mojimbang from Kg Ramaya

1. She know very well that the land was not sold but only loan to SSM who needed a loan to build a house
2. Sipain and Jimain are first cousins and Sipain asked for one lot to build a house
3. SSM promised Jimain that he will not cheat him on this land and will return the title after he retires from work when all would be settled.
4. When both Jimain and Ozulu passed away SSM took advantage and transfer the land title to his son.
5. This dispute never arose until Clarence demolished the house where Jimain's son Joseph Jomani is still occupying.
6. The payment of 500 ringgit was just consolation for transferring the name in the title to enable SSM to get a loan from Borneo Housing
7. I heard clearly SSM thanking Jimain for giving him one lot and promised that when he is a retires from work, he will subdivide the land as per their agreement.
8. My husband is Stephen Biusing and he is a very close friend of SSM.
Jimain and SSM would come to our house for social drinking and that is how I overheard all of these facts from them.

Third witness: Celestina Edith Gilong

1. I live in Kg Ramaya Penampang
2. Rented a house on the land NT 10893 belonging to Jimain Malangin for 3 years
3. Because the house is small and I have a large family, Angeline Jimain gave permission to build another house on the other side of the road but still on the same land, with a one token payment of 3000 ringgit.
4. I am related to the Ozulu family
5. My family have stayed at this new house for the last 20 years
6. We were shocked to receive an eviction notice from Clarence saying we are intruders on his land. The first notice was on 6 Sept 2011, second on October 2013 and the third via a letter from lawyers Bulagang & Co on 26 June 2013.
7. We never moved but defended our position.  We are still staying there because we have nowhere else to go. We know from the beginning that the land does not belong to CSM but just one lot is his.

Fourth witness: Winne bte Jinungin

1. Malangin and Jinungin are brothers
2. My father is Jinungin, and so Livina Malangin is my auntie
3. Livina has also told me about SSM request for one lot to build a house on this land and that the land was never sold but just one lot was given to SSM.

After the short statement by the last witness, the Native court adjourned the hearing for verdict on 15-Nov 2013.

Summary of Courts Verdict

The judges took into account amongst other that:

1. Family affections and mutual trust played a part in the agreement.
2. The land title was not returned to the original owners but there exist and approved subdivision proposal in 1978 signed by Simon Gonsilou as DO.
3. The proposed subdivision did not materialise because of the encroachment of the house built on another adjacent land
4. After 9 months when no one else claimed the land, SSM took opportunity to transfer the title to his son.
5. There was no further action on the land until eviction notices was issued to the occupants of Lot 2.
6. It was believed that Angeline Jimain is the administrator of Lot 2.
7. Due to the pressure from CSM via his lawyer Bulagang, another lawyer Datuk James Ghani has written a letter requesting this native court to hear the case to decide who really owns this land.
8. Facts from the defendant himself including his father appointing a surveyor to subdivide the land,
9. Defendant's statement that the land was bought for 500 ringgit in 1968 and there was no family affection involved cannot be true because 10 years later there was a proposal for subdivision.
10. A land next door of similar size was sold for 50 thousand ringgit, hence not logical for this land to be sold for a mere 500 ringgit.
11. Witness no. 2 showed that SSM took advantage when the two previous owners died.
12. Witness no 3 paid 3,000 ringgit as token just to be able to stay on the land as compared to the 500 ringgit paid by SSM.
13. The ketua kampung of Ramaya knows about this land but the defendant did not respect his orders not to demolish the house on lot 2 while the case is still pending at the native court
14. Witness no. 1, the land was not returned after the loan was paid but subdivision was proposed. The so-called payment for the land for 500ringgit on 19-5-1968 and witnessed by Monjuil was assumed by the defendant as purchase of the land while 10 years later on 25 sept 1978 the proposed subdivision was submitted. There is a significant contradiction and so the 500ringgit is a mere token for being given Lot 1 from the land.
The sum of 500 ringgit was entered into the MOT so that the land can be returned to the original owners.
15. A fileful of documents submitted by both parties were taken into account of this verdict

The judge also commented amongst other things that:
1. What is borrowed should be returned,
2. Love and affection did play a part in this matter
3. The land could not have been sold for 500 ringgit when the land next door was sold for 50 K ringgit and the token payment by Gilong was 3000 ringgit just to stay on the land.

Hence the verdict of the judges, based on equity, system of natural justice and fair to both parties without biased, have unanimously decided in favour of the Plaintiff and the court orders that in the land NT 10893,

LOT 1 is owned by the defendant
LOT 2 is owned by the plaintiff
in accordance with the approved plan of subdivision 1301/63/143 submitted on 23 sept 1978.

The case should be settled at this level of the court, however if any of the parties is not satisfied with this verdict, can appeal to the District Officer (Mahkamah Anak Negeri Peringkat Daerah) within 60 days.

He advised the defendant to think deeply before submitting his appeal after he asked how to appeal against the verdict.

(After analysing the case and the judges summary of judgement I wonder what the heck is the defendants basis for appeal, except perhaps to use lawyers to find loopholes base on technicality)

UPDATE:
As on 5th Dec 2013, the plaintiff has informed that the defendant had submitted his appeal to the District Office via the admin section of the Native Court.

APPEAL FIRST HEARING  on 17 Jun 2013 before DO William Sampil, and two Native Chiefs, Adrian Sikawah and Marcus Johnioh.

According to respondents, the appellant started pointing fingers to Celestina as the problem for carrying out renovation on her house in Lot 2 despite being given a letter of eviction.

Meanwhile, the respondent Matilda had several witnesses with her including the mother of the person who bought the land next door where the house built by Clarence father had encroached into.

STRANGE, It was the Plaintiff who failed to appear in court for Case No. 291/13

Case Title:  Not Known Yet

First hearing date:  12/11/2013 (today)

All Native Court hearings are schedule to start at 9.00 am sharp but when the judges came into the courtroom at about 9.10 am, the plaintiff was not present. So the chief judge declared he is going to wait until 9.30 am and if the plaintiff still failed to arrive, he will record a postponement to a later date. There was no objection from the defendant.
--------------------------------------------------

This post will be continued if the date for the next hearing is known.
However a person sitting in the public gallery informed that the case is about the defendant, (fiancee) having secret relation with another man.
Hence it is therefore strange that the plaintiff failed to come when he is possibly avenging for his broken heart or scorned by a young woman.

There are plenty of records where the defendant try their best to avoid the case by refusing to turn up or ignoring the summons from the native court but for this year, this is the first case where the complainant is missing.

So the best advice to this fiance is simply come to court and ask for an amicable split with your fiancee, maybe request for the return of any dowry if any that was delivered, but be a gentleman and never asked for gifts to be returned. There is a famous Kadazan song by Datuk Justin Stimol that says, while loans and debts have to be paid, any gifts shall be brought along to your graves.
And I have found someone singing this song, RTM star Rose Disuil sang this live at Buhavan Sq.  Embedded here for your easy reference




And if the fiance is broken hearted for not turning up to the hearing that he applied for, here is a broken heart song by Joseph George, "Iziau no Daa" that was top 10 in Radio Sabah VFM, but performed live at Magellan Sutera KK. And I suggest he sings this song for one month to his ex-fiancee,  he he he he he

Guilty defendant appealed for reduction on the fines imposed Case No. 290/13

Case Title: Husband have Secret Liaison with another woman

Open hearing date: 25 Oct 2013
Verdict date: 11 Nov 2013

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, the wife run away to work in Singapore (without husband's permission) in order to earn a living & to support the youngest child who is studying for a degree level in QS.
Although the judge was not happy with wife running away from family, however it was justified because she has a car loan and ASB loan to pay while the husband who is a pensioner from the Water Department did not even give a cent from his pension and gratuity for the youngest child.
The car was meant for the youngest child to attend the college/university.

This led to quarrels and the husband would tell the wife to get out of home.
She had tried to work in KK but the income was insufficient, still she promised to return to her family after earning enough in Singapore to pay for all the loans. The monthly income in Singapore is Sing$1800.

In comparison, the husband's previous income from the water department was RM1800.

Plaintiff alleged that the husband kept another woman and even brought her back to the family home. She has no objection to him marrying again on the conditions that he does not bring the other woman into the family home and that the Native Laws are complied with. As for his present offence against the native customs, she leaved it to the court to decide.

In response, the first defendant (husband) admitted having another woman or in native language, "au mogohim" ( did not deny) and even stated that he intended to take a second wife. On this the judge reminded him that under the native customs, there are lots of fines to pay for example "hapau" ( loosely translated adding another layer to existing family, wife and children). He responded that he was willing to face the consequences under the native customs.
During the first hearing, the judge even commented that being at a pensionable age and with grown up children, do you still really need a girlfriend?


The second defendant (girlfriend) admitted she was brought home as a wife but was told that her husband to be do not have a wife for the last 7 years.
She also admitted having done something not supposed to be done before being married and would not brush off any penalty imposed.
However, she signed the statement using her RH thumb print.

After two weeks, the native court comprising of three native judges declared unanimously that:
1. This was a straightforward case with no denials
2. Both defendants are guilty of secret liaison of sexual nature under section 10(1) of the native courts enactment
3. The first defendant to pay a total of RM 5500 comprising of :-
   a) 2 buffaloes (RM3000)
   b) Appeasement for the village (RM1000)
   c)  court cost (RM1500)
4. Second defendant to pay court cost (RM500)

On hearing this amount of "Sogit" the first defendant appealed for a reduction, on which the judges granted after consultation with one another and since it appears that the first defendant will be paying for both the sogits, it was reduced to RM4600 from a total of RM6000 previously provided that he signed a pledge to pay it within 14 days at the native court administration section.

The defendant then asked the court if he can divorce his first wife, to which the presiding judge told him to go and meet the priest who first blessed their marriage, and then hire a lawyer to apply for the divorce at the high court.

================

Moral of the case:  Do not assume you can marry, get a divorce and marry again that easily if you are a native in this country.

CALM and Kool Kat defendant on another Secret Liaison Case: No 201/13

Case Title: "Mianu anu" or Secret Liaison between a wife and another man.

Verdict Date: 29 Sept 2013
Plaintiff: Husband

Plaintiff testimony not available as the reporter was not present during the first hearing.

The Native Judges (one Presiding and 2 Assessors) announced their verdict that the wife has illicit sexual relation with another man at a different residential area, and they came to this conclusion that the free sex occurred due to the admission by both defendants, viz the wife and the other man.

Verdict:  Both have to pay "sogit" to the plaintiff and the court up to RM 7K comprising of:-

1.  2 buffaloes ( RM 3,000)
2.  Appeasement for the village of plaintiff: RM2000
3.  Native court fee : RM1500
4.  The other man "sogit" to children of plaintiff: RM500

These sum of "sogit" to be paid within 14 days to the native court which will then disburse them to the relevant parties.
======================

After the verdict was read and the judges have left the courtroom, the first defendant (the other man) went around and shook the hands of everyone present in court including this reporter. That is why he deserved the title "Kool Kat Defendant" and seemed sporting enough, no problems paying the fine and no time wasted.

Also no mention if there will be a divorce between the wife and husband.

 
In Kadazandusun Law, there are four types of punishment
1. sogit = ritual fine
2. Komoluan = compensation for disgrace
3. Babas = gifts for conciliation
4. Kolugian = reimbursement for loss
For more details, please read Special Report in local Daily Express Newspaper page 12 Sunday edition 10 November 2013, not sure if available online. Article written by Tracy Patrick

Native Court Judge scolded ex-husband that even birds know how to feed their chicks: - Case 226/13

Case heading: Not paying sustenance cost for 3 children since divorce was formalised in court

Plaintiff:  Parents of ex-wife
Defendant: Mr Wong, ex-husband
Open Hearing: 11 September 2013

Plaintiff's testimony:

1. The father of former wife (who was not present in court) informed the court that the defendant had not paid a cent since the divorce was formalised where the court had fixed the rate to be paid
2. Three of his children aged 16, 15 and 13 all are attending schools have been staying with him and wife for 9 years and both he and wife have been bearing the cost of raising the children
3. The defendant and his daughter were married at Terawi Church in 1996 and split due irreconcilable differences. They have been seperated for 10 years
4. The amount owed has now totalled 60 thousand RM
5.  Sadly his own daughter who is working in Kuala Lumpur seemed to have washed her hands over her own children too.

This prompted the judge to scold the defendant that even adult birds know how to feed their chicks and added that the mother (ex-wife) should also share the responsibility in raising the kids.

6. Plaintiff last statement was that he also have difficulty contacting his daughter in KL.

Defendant's respond:

As usual the judge made sure he had heard and understood all the statement from the plaintiff and made him signed that statement.

The judge then asked the defendant why "Janji tidak ditepati" ( meaning promised not fulfilled, which is a play on the government's slogan of "Janji ditepati" = all promises fulfilled)

The defendant gave two idiotic reasons, economic problems and that his girlfriend is controlling him and money.
This prompted another scolding and he was told to kick out his girlfriend.

The Native Court solved the problem simply by ordering the man to give details of his employer and that a court order will be issued to the employer to deduct the proper amount from his salary to include installments on the RM60 K arrears.

( Moral of this case:  Don't just get married but never learn to be responsible over your own children. As the judge said, if the birds know how to look after their chicks, then what kind of a human being is it that simply abandoned their own kid? )

SUPPORTING  the judge's comment, here is a pic of birds feeding their chicks,  heeee hawwww.

Native Court tried to patch a broken marriage for a couple applying for Divorce: - Case 174/13

Open hearing date: 1 Aug 2013

Plaintiff: RM from Country Heights
Defendant: OS from Kg Kolopis

Case Heading: Plaintiff (wife) Applying or Requesting for Divorce from Husband

Plaintiff Testimony:
1. Were married at Kg Mandurian Laut, Pitas
2. No certificate of marriage from any authority except for engagement certificate signed by a village headman (Ketua Kampong)

Since they were not legally married, the native judge requested her to bring along any wedding photographs to his office later.

3. When asked by the judge for reasons why she wanted the divorce, she answered her affection has declined, which prompted the judge to suggest that she was "kumaus"? meaning sulking.
4. When pressed further for reasons, she said that they were seperated for 3 years during which she never received any maintenance for her third child which is with her. The elder two children are with the husband. She lived alone and worked to support herself and the third child.
5. She declined to reply when asked what if the husband returns to her with affection.
6. She had no objection to be given a marriage certificate by the Native Court and willing to pay for the cost, in order to formalise the divorce.
7. She also informed that she had been waiting at the office of this court since 7 am this morning
8. As a final statement she confirmed requesting for the divorce from the husband.
(STATEMENT was then signed)

Defendant's response:
1. Have heard and understood completely the plaintiff's complaint
2. Willing to proceed with the divorce processes including first getting a marriage certificate and then divorce after one week.
3. When pressed for reasons for his agreeing to the divorce, he stated irreconcilable differences and continuous argument over family matters.
4. He declared he has no other woman or girlfriend at this time.

On hearing these testimonies, the judge announced that there is no verdict for this hearing but request both parties to see him in his chamber, after the open hearing was completed.

(This reporter assumed that the Judge would attempt to reconcile and save the marriage of this couple first, before proceeding with the divorce procedures.  Until the time of writing, there is no further info on the progress of this case)
Note:  Inside info is that it would take 3 months for the courts to complete the divorce processes. Also the Native Court have no power to process or approve divorces for those who married in church and registered with JPN. Only those who got married via the adat kampung may be terminated by this native courts. (updated  14.11.2013)

The hearing was continued on 25 Nov 2013 where the Native Court again open a fresh hearing to determine if the couple really wants to divorce with mutual agreement.

The marriage certificate was already issued by the native court 3 months ago and again the wife was quizzed all over again if she wanted to proceed with the divorce without regret. The judges even tried to become marriage councellors by suggesting they take a second honeymoon to Labuan with their children.

However both the plaintiff and defendant insist that the divorce be carried out since there was already like 5 hearings in this court and the same thing is said all over again.

As for the children, the 2 eldest will be taken care by the husband while the wife takes the youngest child with an agreement that both will have access to all children whenever needed.

Therefore as on 25th Nov 2013, the judges then declared unanimously to grant the divorce application based on agreement by both parties and that the marriage certificate issued on 1st Aug 2013 is thereby nullified.

MORAL of the story,  all couples intending to get married better be warned that if you use divorce as a way to solve your marital problem, then better be ready to face a long wait for the process to run its course.

CASE STORY ENDED as on 25/11/2013

Drama Outside Court After Verdict: Case 118/13 Penampang Native Court

Case:  Hubungan Sulit ( Having a secret relation )

First hearing: 20/6/2013
2nd hearing: 19/8/2013
Final hearing and verdict:2/10/2013

Plaintiff testimony: Wife AAN submitted to the court a file of evidence including letter from husband seeking a divorce, sms in cellphone and photographs.
She testified that she and husband married at St Michael's Church Penampang (solemnised by Fr. Chung) after 3 years of engagement.
They have  3 male children, all were present in court during the first hearing.
When the husband went to work in Kuching Sarawak, the youngest son went to visit him and found an old girlfriend staying with him like a new wife and found photographs of them lying in bed together, which he took and gave to mum !
Back in KK, the wife stated that when she was hospitalised due to a kitchen accident, the husband did not even bother to visit her at the hospital.
Two children of the girlfriend now call her husband as "daddy" while he called the girlfried as "sayang" (darling)
This prompted the judge to ask the plaintiff, " what does your husband call you?" which she replied as " Angie ".
The judge suggested that she should have called her husband "darling" for a favourable response.
She emotionally asked the husband in court if he still consider her as a wife, and asked the court for a full settlement of the case in the Native Court Only.

In response, the defendant declared he understood the wife's testimony but disagrees with certain matters, however admitted a relationship with his old friend from their younger days.
However failing to visit the wife in hospital was due to being overoccupied with attending to his younger sister's engagement.
He also informed that he has given expenses to his children direct to their bank accounts.
He declared that his relationship with the girlfriend was long known by his wife and children.
As for the present whereabouts of his girlfriend, now he said he does not know.

The case was adjourned during the first hearing to summon the girlfriend as 2nd defendant.

During the 2nd hearing, the 2nd defendant did not turn up but send a male lawyer to represent her instead. The lawyer was practically scolded because as a lawyer, he should know that lawyers are not permitted in the Native Court and that all parties to the case must present their own cases.

At the final hearing, the 2nd defendant was present with her lawyer sitting at the public gallery. She claimed that she only had relation with the man after his marriages was deemed as ended, for which the judges asked her under what law she assumed that to have happened.

She then continued that only now she understood the real situation and proposed that both the husband and wife are reunited and she would withdraw even as just a good friend. On this the judge asked her what would she do if the man goes after her again?  She promised the court that she would never have anything to do with the man and his family again.
She denied the existence of a secret relation between herself and the man, however the judges commented how does she explain the photograph of them lying on the same bed and same pillow?

After a 15 minutes recess, the three judges came back to the court to announce their verdict.
They found both the defendants guilty of Hubungan Sulit and fine the husband to pay a Sogit totalling RM4000.00 consisting of:
1 buffalo or RM1500 to the wife
1 pig or RM500 to each of the sons totalling rm 1500
1 court cost of RM 1000.00

The 2nd defendant was given a lighter sentence with just a court cost of RM500.00
(most probably for her declaration that she would have nothing to do with the man anymore)

All fines to be paid the the court within 14 days or otherwise face 1 month jail.

The man did not seemed to mind the Sogits but protested loudly that the judges has recorded the girlfriend as admitting there was a "hubungan sulit" when she has strongly denied it. The judges responded that this is the official term used by the court for this case and if he is not satisfied, he can go fill a form and appeal to the District Officer.

( The man seemed to have forgotten that in his own testimony, he ADMITTED he had a secret relationship with his old girlfriend)

When the lawyer for the girlfriend tried to say something, he was told to shut up by the judges. ("Kau diam" was the exact words)

After the proceedings was completed and the judges have left the court, some minor drama occurred.
First the wife was hugging a young unidentified man trying to calm him of taking a swing at the husband but in the process she fell down and banged against the wooden wall of the court room, luckily without any harm.

Outside the courtroom, the young man was heard shouting at the husband in bahasa malaysia something like, " sikit sikit kau cakap mau pigi polis,  saya pun polis juga" ( loosely translated, always threatening that he will go to the police, well I am a policeman too )

Then another unknown woman was heard screaming at the girlfriend or mistress in English on top of her voice " I have warned you......."
( I can only assumed that she is a relative who is scolding the girlfriend for not listening to her advice of avoiding a relationship with a married man, which has now given a bad name to the family )

Even one of the judges was shocked at this commotion outside his chamber and came out commenting to this reporter, that he has not shown his Kuntau ( self defence technique) yet if those guys continued with the disturbances outside his office (chamber).

=========================

Moral of this factual event ??  Well, I will leave that to all of your readers.  he he he he