1. ) ABDUL GHANI BIN ABU BAKAR 2. ) ISMAIL BIN ABU BAKAR 3. ) MARIAM BINTI AKIB 4. ) MAT RADZI BIN ABU BAKAR 5. ) MAT SOBRI BIN ABU BAKAR 6. ) MOHAMAD NAWI BIN ABU BAKAR 7. ) NORIAH BINTI ABU BAKAR 8. ) NORMAH BINTI ABU BAKAR v Ahmad Bin Haji Idris (Si Mati Melalui Rocida Binti Ahmad Binti Ahmad (K/p: 820707025070) Sebagai Sahabat Wakil)

Case Significance

A worked example of assessing agricultural loss for trespass to paddy land on the restitutio in integrum measure, quantifying multi-season yield and government subsidy where the wrongdoer adduces no contrary evidence.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, Kedah concerns the assessment of damages following a finding of liability for trespass to and misuse of paddy land. In the underlying action several plaintiffs, members of one family, had sued over the defendant's misuse and trespass affecting their paddy holding, and an earlier judge had allowed the claim and ordered that the losses and damages be assessed before the Deputy Registrar or a judge. The matter came before the court on that assessment, the parties having filed affidavits and written submissions rather than calling oral evidence. The court's task was to quantify the loss of paddy yield caused by the trespass, guided by the principle of restitutio in integrum, that the injured party should be restored to the position it would have occupied had the tortious act not occurred, and mindful of the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953. On the evidence the plaintiffs established the yield and value of the crop, including a sale price of RM1,300 per ton, a holding of about four-and-a-half relong yielding around nine tons per season with a sale value of about RM11,700 per season, together with government subsidies provided by the Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA). The court found the plaintiffs' evidence credible and noted that, apart from putting the plaintiffs to strict proof, the defendant had offered no evidence to the contrary. Accepting the plaintiffs' submissions, the court assessed the yield loss over 44 harvest seasons (22 years at two seasons a year) at RM11,700 multiplied by 44, that is RM514,800, added the government subsidy at 31.58% amounting to RM162,539, and deducted cultivation costs of RM67,082.40 over the period. The judgment is a useful worked example of assessing agricultural loss for trespass on the restitutio in integrum measure where the wrongdoer adduces no contrary evidence.