CASE OF woman who did not know she will become Wife No. 2

First hearing date: 10. 3. 2015 CASE NO. 56/15

Plaintiff:  Judith of Terawi

First Defendant:  Raphael of Kinarut
Second Defendant: Johanna

Plaintiff open hearing Testimony:

The court asked, what is her purpose to come to court?
To ask the court for decision because her husband had married again, she did not know why and when and only knew through "facebook".

She did not have any documents as proof of her contention but somehow she had submitted a "surat berian" to the court.
Since he married the other woman, he did not come home or contacted me.
For 2 years he never came home or telephone.
We never have any serious problems before this apart from him always not at home.
We don't have any children.

Now I am working in a legal firm in KK and before that I had worked for a hardware shop at Jln Penampang Bypass.

Since then he never gave me any financial maintenance and neither did I ask.

I summoned him because I am still the legal wife to claim my rights as per the Native Adat of Penampang and afterwards seek for a divorce. As for other matters, I leave that to the wisdom of the court.

(Signed her statement as recorded by the bench)

Defendant No. 1:

The court asked the usual question, "did you understand the complaint against you and do you agree or disagree? "

He answered in Kadazan " Kalati om Otopot nakasavo zou vagu"
meaning " I understood and true I have married again"
We are already married for nearly 2 years.

There was a problem with my first wife. She left home of her own accord even before the 100 days after my mother died. She just left taking her personal belongings including clothes, TV and a fan.

Did you tell your first wife your intention to marry again?
How can I when she had already disappeared from home.

Why did you take the short cut and get married without solving your first marriage? 
I did not know or understand the native adat (hmm, a kadazan who does not know his own traditions, he he)

Our first marriage was done at St Michael's Church and the second one at the Native Court Penampang on 1 Jan 2014.

As for my first wife request for a divorce, I will sign the divorce papers now.
But the court said, you must do it at the JPN or Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara where his marriage certificate is recorded in accordance with the processes set out by JPN.

The bench asked, anything else you want to add?

How much would be my fine, I like to have a clue since I am only a driver who makes a living by accepting charters from people who needs transport.


Defendant No. 2 in the witness box.

When asked by the court she confirmed being married to defendant 1 in January 2014 and now have a baby boy whom they named as Randel and is being looked after by parents at Kinarut.

I was already pregnant and only then my husband told me that he is still not formally divorced from first wife. Whatever happens, he said he will take full responsibility.
If I had known he has not settled the divorce yet, I would not have married him yet.

I am a Dusun from Keningau where both my parents are also Dusun.

I am now just a housewife and would like to ask why she waited so long and only after 2 years then summon in court.

The Native Chief from the bench responded by saying, she is sitting infront of you now, just asked her !!

====

After all the statements were signed, the bench which was led by Ketua Daerah Bryan Matasing, KAN Andrew S Lidaun and KK Michael Bejuet set the date for the verdict on 9 April 2015 at 9 am sharp.

Before adjourning the hearing, the KD or District Chief reminded that for any divorce proceeding, the parties must go back to the authority that conducted and registered their marriage and follow the procedures set out by this authority.

If the marriage is registered with JPN, then they must go there to seek for a divorce.

The Native Court can only approve a divorce that was previously conducted at the Native Court.

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

To be continued after the verdict.

THE VERDICT WAS passed on 24 April 2015 because on 9 April, the court had to ask extra questions to the defendant because of the complication that he has two different marriage certificate both valid at the same time, from JPN and from Native Court.

------------------------------

PENAMPANG. A man from Kinarut who married again without formally divorcing his first wife paid a customary fine totalling RM 3,000 at the Native Court here. He had claimed ignorance of the native “adat” and assumed that being separated for nearly two years meant they were divorced.

The panel of judges District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native  Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Michael Bejuet concurred that he had breach the native customary law of “lapau” (bigamy or polygamy) for which the fine is one buffalo (RM1500) which is payable to the first wife, under Section 20 (1)  of the Native Court Enactment 1992/1995.

He escaped paying further “sogit” to children since there was no child with the first wife.

He and his second wife also have to pay one buffalo (RM1500) as appeasement to the village of the first wife to be administered by the village chief.

According to the facts of the case, the defendant testified that his marital problem started when his wife left their home on her own accord with all her personal belongings including clothes, TV and a fan, less than 100 days after his mother had passed away. He claimed to have contacted her to come home with no avail hence had no objection if his wife initiate the divorce proceedings at the National Registration Department as they have previously married in church. He took the second wife via the Native Court on 10 January 2014.

In passing the verdict, the court has taken into account that the second marriage has already resulted in a baby boy now aged 6 months and the defendant and his first wife have mutually agreed to proceed with their divorce.

However, in accordance with the formality of the court, any of the parties can appeal the verdict to the District Native Court within 60 days or the fines to be paid with 14 days, in default the husband face 3 months jail and the second wife face 1 month jail if the fines were not paid.

When the court asked them for their final say, the man announced he wished to pay the fines after the hearing is concluded. Meanwhile his second wife asked the court if she can sue back the first wife if she continues talking about her or the case, but was rebuked by the judges saying their case is now settled and both parties should now move on happily ever after.

 

Meanwhile for Native Chief Lidaun, despite the passing of his younger brother, his sense of duty still brought him back to the court in the morning after which he rushed home to attend the requiem mass at a chapel in his village of Kobusak, Nosoob.

CASE OF SISTER IN LAW REFUSING TO SIGN NATIVE LAND SUBDIVISION DOCUMENT

Hearing date: 27 January 2015

Plaintiff:  Ian Culey
Defendant:  Tenjain

PENAMPANG. The Native Court here postponed the hearing of a case summoned by a British Expatriate who had lived in Sabah for 50 years with a permanent resident status until he has satisfied his eligibility to appear in the native court.

 

District Chief Bryan Matasing who led the bench with Native Chiefs Andrew S Lidaun and Woritus Paulus informed the plaintiff that the Native Court was established to hear cases from natives only however non-natives must first make a police report followed with an endorsement from the District Officer to enable them to present a case.

 

The expatriate was representing his daughter who is an Anglo-Kadazan currently residing in Kuala Lumpur to claim the share of a land at Kg. Bantayan Inanam belonging to her late mother who passed in 2013 and is a native Kadazan. One of her auntie who has a share in the land refused to sign the subdivision documents for reasons yet to be heard in court.

 

Another obstacle was discovered when the plaintiff assumed that his children would automatically be considered as natives since their mother is a native. However the court explained that the present requirement is for the children of mixed marriages to present a Letter of Confirmation as natives issued by the Native Court after a full hearing. The plaintiff informed that he had a letter of confirmation from the “Majlis Hal Ehwal Anak Negeri Sabah”or MHEANS however the court told him this body is an administrative body and not a Court hence the letter is not valid.

 

The expatriate has three children, one son and two daughters and all of them will be required to apply for the Letter of Confirmation as natives from the Native Court in order for any inheritance of Native Titled land can be processed.

 

After the hearing was adjourned, the expatriate who can now speak fluent Kadazan and Bahasa Malaysia said they have no choice but to comply with all the administrative requirements where all the children will have to be present in person at the Native Court to obtain the Letter of Confirmation as natives.

KG TIMPANGO CASE OF SHOOTING 3 BUFFALOES

First Native Case in Penampang for year 2015
Date 22 January 2015

Plaintiff:  Padan
Defendant:  Jongujis

PENAMPANG. A farmer from Kg. Timpango here, finally agreed to pay RM1000 which is the balance of his fine for shooting three buffaloes last year.

The case was first heard in chamber on 15 May 2014 where the plaintiff who owned the 3 buffaloes had claimed compensation. The defendant had counterclaimed for damages to his crops when the buffaloes had strayed into his land before being shot.

 

After the damaged crops were evaluated, the Native Court had determined the defendant still had RM1000 to pay including RM500 for the peace of the village. However, until yesterday the defendant had yet to pay the balance of the fine prompting the plaintiff to summon him back to court. When asked why, the defendant claimed that the remaining buffaloes owned by the plaintiff were still running wild on his land.

This excuse earned him a rebuke from the bench and he was told not to mix and confuse new issues with the previous decision of the court. He can submit fresh complaints on new issues.

 

When the defendant promised to pay be the “end of next month” the court set February 27 ( Friday) as the settlement date.

 

The panel of native judges was led by District Chief Bryan Matasing together with Native Chiefs Andrew S Lidaun and Woritus Paulus disposed the case within 30 minutes. After both parties have signed their statements, Matasing summed up by reminding both parties on the meaning of “sogit”.

After it is paid, both parties should reconcile since sogit means “to cool down” in the local dialect which help maintain the peace in their village. He also said a gun is called firearm and fire is hot. He hoped that this incident will not happen again and reminded the defendant that even pointing an empty or unloaded gun without reason is a serious offence.

 

Outside the court, one Native Chief explained that domesticated buffaloes should be caught and compounded so the owner can be fined for letting them loose and not shot because farmers are given licence to own a shotgun to protect their crops against dangerous or wild animals only.

Case 332/13 Follow up - Banjar Jailed 6 months for not paying sogit and contempt of court

PENAMPANG. The Native Court here ordered a 25 year old Bajau to be imprisoned for 6 months under Clause 10 (1) (iii b) of the Native Courts Enactment 1992/1995, for failing to pay any of the “sogit” or customary penalty imposed on him since February this year. The imprisonment shall commence from the date of his arrest by the Police.

The panel of judges consisting of District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Head Rita John made the unanimous decision from the bench taking into account that the defendant was in contempt of court for purposely not attending the hearing today, Thursday 4th Sept 2014.

 

The plaintiff informed the court that the defendant had arrived earlier outside the courtroom and after offering to hold the baby for a while, he immediately disappeared with the baby and later sent an SMS to the baby’s mother that said, “either you listen to them or to me”. A copy of this SMS was taken by the court as evidence.

 

According to the facts of the case, the 25 year old man who is unemployed but sometimes sells cloths, was fined RM5300 for “mianu-anu”(illicit intercourse) under Clause 10(1) and another RM3000 under Clause 21 (1) for taking away a daughter without the consent of the parents, in a verdict passed by the same court in February. He was also ordered to return the 21 year old girl to her family and the baby from the illicit affair would be raised by her as a single mother.

Instead he managed to blackmail the girl to come back to him without paying any of the fines and honouring any of the promises he had made in the past.

This forced the girl’s mother as plaintiff to return to the court for further actions and assistance.

 

Meanwhile the girl as the co-accused was grateful to her parents for paying to the court her RM700 sogit for “mianu-anu”, otherwise she would face one month jail sentence. She promised before the judges not to go back to the man but to return to her parents, claiming that he had beaten her while they were together. She will also make a police report to get her baby back.

 

In summing up the case, District Chief Matasing gave the girl a long counselling to understand and comply with her own “adat” (native custom) in order to protect herself, and not to hesitate in making a police report if the man threatens her again.

 

Outside the court, the girl’s father informed that the man even made fun of the native adat saying there are no such things in his community. Maybe his race is lawless and have no civilised customs, he added.

BLOGGER NOTE:  This was reported in Daily Express under heading "Offender is jailed 6 months in absentia" on 5th Sept 2014.

However due to paperwork processes and also the brother of the offender came to beg for leniency and time to pay at the native courts, the Bajau was only sent to jail on 6 November at Kepayan.

He would be held for six months while the girl jailed for one month. I wonder who is looking after their kids, but maybe the parent of the girl.

CASE NO 86/14 - Jikinon Vs Sikui

Missed attending the early hearings but manage to follow site visit on 21st March 2014.  Date of Verdict 27 August 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case title: Menyerbu, Mencari Hal, Mengeluarkan Kata-kata Kesat dll

or Tresspassing or raiding neighbours house, uttering obscenities and slander, Causing trouble, damages etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff: Daughter of a Building Contractor representing the whole family

Defendant:  A father and 3 sons who are neighbours.

Summary of Plaintiff's testimony:
At about 5 pm (date not noted) I heard the neighbours consisting of the father and 3 sons shouting, "'whoever closed the road would be killed"
The situation looked serious so prevented my father from going out, instead watch the outside from the CCTV camera.
We saw the sons overturning the washing machines outside and shouting slanders and obscenities.
( Later on outside the court the mum gave examples of such slander:
1.  That the daughter is having sex with the chairman of the local JKKK and perhaps siding with the family in the road access dispute
2.  That the son should go and fuck his own mother)
We then heard the mechanical shovel being started and a threat to pull down the house if they don't come out. The shovel was later found in the river.
Their passenger Hilux was also damaged with a baseball bat and stones. The CCTV camera was then pointed upwards. Later on the police arrived to cool down the situation.

My father has spent RM16K to build a new road for the neighbours because they always passed infront of our house at dangerous speed which nearly hit one of our little kid at one time.

Defendant's response:

Admitted the incident occurred because his mum was ill and the sons want to send her to hospital but found the road blocked by the mechanical shovel, the hilux and other vehicles.  I phone the police but got the same answer, that everytime it is always that neighbours name.
When I arrived home I saw 6 vehicles blocking the road so I started the mechanical shovel but it moved in all direction.
He admitted having damaged the bonnet and the glasses of the hilux.
When the police arrived, they ordered all the vehicles to be moved.
We don't know who built the new road, nor do we know for whom.
I have brought the matter to the District Officer but never get any solution. Therefore we plead not guilty to all the charges.

Site Inspection on 21st March:
Present were both parties, meaning the father and sons on one side and the contractor on the other.
Also present were the Ketua Kampung of KUAI and the chairman of the local JKKK.
From the Native Court was NC Andrew S Lidaun, two village heads from other kampungs, one court clerk, one WKAN Pius and a driver.
( and reporter of course)

Well the photographs below speaks a million words, he he he

Verdict: By NC Andrew, NC Woritus and KK Rita (unanimous of course)

Summing up:

Police report was made by the daughter as plaintiff, the DO has approved the case to be heard in the native court.
On the site visit, they found that the road is not perfect but can be used however the defendant were still using the road infront of the plaintiff's house.

The new road can be used when he asked on of the sons to drive his car along the road.

(NC Andrew did ask the sons to test the road, and their sporty car was still able to drive along the road though it was rather too close to the river bank)

The distance between the two houses is only about 100 feet.
Question: why take such drastic and hasty actions including damaging properties and using abusive language? Problems should be solved via the authorities such as police, ketua kampong and chairman of JKKK.
Raiding, attacking, trespassing, slander and taking the law into your own hands are certainly wrong. We have taken into account 25 photographs and CD recordings from the CCTV as evidences.
The court orders the road infront of the plaintiff to be closed for the sole use of the plaintiff and family. The new roads can now be used by all others since we understand that added improvements have been made since the site visit. If any defects is found, the village head shall apply for allocations for their repair.

The fathers from both families are distantly related and thus both family should follow the spirit of 1 Malaysia where both should help one another in times of needs. Instead the defendant admits the incident occurred and yet say he is NOT guilty.

The Sogit will be as follows:-

1. For trespassing and threats to attack causing extreme fear ( “noiduan sunduvan” in Kadazan) the sogit was one pig or RM500 under Clause 41.

2.  For uttering slanderous remarks the sogit was also one pig or RM500 under clause 36.

3.  For throwing stone at the house directed to the security CCTV, the sogit was RM300 under Clause 45.

4.  For starting the engine while not the qualified operator of the mechanical shovel causing it to move dangerously is all direction, the sogit was RM300 and for damaging the bonnet, plate number and the windscreen glass of a Hilux vehicle, another  RM300 under Clause 58, all of which comes under the Native Courts Enactment 1992/1995.

 

The defendant is given 14 days to pay the fine.

 

The father representing the defendant then interrupted " Saya bayar sogit sekarang" to which the court rebuked. "kamu boleh bayar diluar mahkamah, iaitu di Pejabat."

 

Court was then adjourned for the last time.

 

 

PHOTOS of Site Inspection:

 

 

Kinda give the image that a native court hears cases under the trees, but this is site inspection of the case. KK Rita in dark specs with WKAN Pius nearby.

 Ketua kampong of Kuai giving his point of view

 Native Chief Andrew walking about taking photographs and wearing the Native Court Vest.

 The new road built at the edge of the river, still not so safe at that time. The shed at the right was later removed in order to widen the new road and away from the river bank.

 Position of the new road compared to the old one where the plaintiff has built his workshop.

 Road continuing to the defendants house.

This sukun tree sadly had to be chopped down to widen the new road

The workshop infront of the plaintiff's house which is rather monopolising the river bank reserve land.

 



The sons testing the new road track with their sporty sounding car



This kampung chicken was enjoying a sandbath under the plaintiff's hilux, oblivious of all the arguments and fights amongst the humans.  he he he he he he he he he he h

CASE NO 39/14 Gomiti vs Daughter and boyfriend

PENAMPANG. A 58 year old mother from Kg Kituau testified to the Native Court here that her 24 year old daughter had lived together with her 29 year old boyfriend resulting in the birth of a boy which is now 4 years old.

A member of the bench commented that this is no longer a “hubungan sulit” or secret liaison case in view of the age of the son, however the plaintiff said she only knew the case recently when it became public knowledge that the child was born before any marriage had taken place.

She also confirmed that no engagement or any other receptions as per the native traditions were carried out, and both parents have never given any blessing to their relationship. She had submitted the case for settlement in accordance to the native “adat” of Penampang.

 

In response, the daughter as first defendant simply confirmed her mother’s testimony but added that she had already broken up with the boyfriend one year ago and does not want to get married as she is not ready. The court then warned her that if she ever wants to get married, she should ask the parents to follow the proper process as the panel would not like to see her back in court.

When asked, she affirmed ready to face the penalty from the native court.

 

The boyfriend as second defendant also did not contest the charges and confirmed willing to accept the penalty in accordance with the adat.

He also admitted having married previously and then divorced and had converted to Islam. For this reason he cannot marry the first defendant as she does not want to convert.

On the maintenance of the son, he claimed giving expenses direct to the school.

 

However, his mother who was present in court and permitted to speak outside the witness stand, informed that she will assist her son to provide RM150 per month until he has grown up. She added that she also assist in fetching the kid to and from the school.

 

After recording all the testimonies, the panel of judges comprising the District Chief Bryan Matasing and Native Chiefs Andrew S Lidaun and Woritus Paulus then set the verdict on 26 August.

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

Yes, today is 26th August 2014 and time for the update:

At 9:30 am the Native court convened.  The same panel of judges were on the bench.

The judges announced that after investigation and studying the case, they have come to a unanimous decision that the two defendants have breached the native customary adat by their act of "mianu-anu" under section 3, clause 10 (1) of the Native Court Enackment 1992/1995.

The sogit totalling RM6000 consisted of:

To be paid by the boyfriend to the mother of the girl:
2 heads of livestock or RM3000
Another head of livestock or RM1500 for kepanasan kampong Kituau or appeasement of the village.
Court cost of RM800.

The girl who is also part of the offence of mianu-anu was only fined RM700 as part of the court cost.

Since the girl now has gone back to stay with the mother, the court then advised the mother to take care of her daughter and question her and boyfriend if she ever had another one, and to ensure they follow the adat and get married properly instead of breaching the adat as before.

Also the court said, although the couple can appeal the decision of the native court to the district native court presided by the District Officer, that would be illogical since both the defendants have admitted openly that they were guilty as accused by the mother.

Court is Ended.

 

The Mango tree and concrete culvert case from Guunsing, Case Number 227/13

 

 

Penampang.

Plaintiff:  LYS

Defendant:  DL

 

both from kg Guunsing.

 

 The Native Court here heard a suggestion by a 56 year old self-employed man for the defendant to go to some resorts and relax and calm himself in his retirement.

He was testifying before Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun who was assisted by two village chiefs.

 The plaintiff said he know the man as a good person but now seemed to be behaving in a manner inconsistent with what he had assumed, because of his age.

 The 71 year old retired civil servant had accused him of cutting down two mango trees and stealing two concrete culverts from his property which is about 150 metres from the plaintiff’s house.

 

The plaintiff then submitted several photographs to the court showing that the culverts are still lying on the defendant’s land and the house there supposedly belonging to the defendant’s sister is dilapidated and has been abandoned for about 8 years. He had brought the case to the native court for settlement as he has not done anything wrong while the accused seemed to be monopolising Kampung Guunsing and even known to have beaten other people. The police report made against him by the defendant is without basis and not relevant.

 

Inside the dock, the defendant claimed he is still waiting for the result of his police report and the case is also heard in the magistrate court which is also pending the police report. He said that he has no power to direct the police to speed up the investigation.

 

However, the court countered that he was already given 3 months previously to bring any feedback from the police regarding his complaint and during the third hearing, he had failed to turn up. The case had been pending for more than 5 months without any results.

 

The defendant tried to add that the plaintiff is a Sino without any Native Certificate but he was ticked off by the court as this is not relevant to the case before him.

 

The court then gave him one last chance within one month to get any feedback from the police to prove his accusation against the plaintiff failing which judgement can be made against him.

The court was adjourned until 10 July 2014.

CASE CONTINUED ON 10/7/2014 as scheduled.  9.15 am

Hearing continued before District Chief Bryan Matasing Lojingon
assisted by NC Andrew S Lidaun and KK Michael Sigawal

Defendant in the dock said that he failed to present any police investigation results to back up his allegations against the plaintiff.

Next Witness Inspector Mohd Najib as IO - IP Penampang Dept CID section. Serving in Sabah since April 2010

Regards to private complaint only received on 7 July 2013 from the defendant.
the original report made on 4 May 2013 which is rather aged in time.

the report was referred to a magistrate in Kk who have on 21 may 2013 ordered further investigation
Since he only received that order on 7 July 2014, time for me to make further investigation and produced a written report is short.
No police action done because the defendant who made the report himself cannot give any solid witnesses, clues or info as to who stole the goods from his house. Hence further investigation cannot be done without any clues if the plaintiff  is the one who took the materials, goods etc

In good faith, my opportunity to investigate further due to time,
- no solid witnesses seing the theft
- time factor, theft occurred long time ago
- case is not a public interest, but personal interest since the goods dont have markings or serial number to trace.
Therefore up to the honourable court to make an appropriate decision since the two parties involved are locals.

Hence the court today makes an immediate decision which is unanimous based on NO witnesses by the defendant and all the informations  said on court so far.

Under Part 2 Clause 6 of the MAN enactment 199'/1995 the defendant is found guilty for causing provocation.

Fined is one head of livestock or in default pay another RM500, jail not exceeding 1 month or BOTH.  Pay the sogit which is one domestic PIG or both. The fine to be paid to the plaintiff.

Pay within 14 days or appeal within 60 days.

Defendant immediately told the court that he wish to appeal whereby the court said go and fill up a form.  The court then adjourned the case.

Plaintiff inform that he too will sue for defamation at the session court in KK.

Case ENDS pending whatever actions both parties take.