LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v SU’OT TEBARI @ SALI TEBARI [SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 3 OF HIS SIBLINGS]
Outcome
Conclusion [87] In conclusion for the primary reason that the plaintiff failed to establish NCR over the disputed lands, we dismiss his appeal (Appeal 654) with no order as to costs and allow the appeal of the Government (Appeal 671) with costs of RM30,000 here and below and allow the appeal of the LCDA (Appeal 672) with costs of RM30,000 here and below.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (3)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Illustrates that a title alienated to a statutory authority such as the LCDA enjoys indefeasibility that prevails over pre-existing native customary rights, extinguishing the NCR and barring rectification of the register, leaving only a remedy in damages against the Government.
This Court of Appeal decision concerns one of three appeals heard together, arising from a native customary rights (NCR) claim decided by the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Limbang. The underlying claim was brought by a native, suing on behalf of himself and three siblings, asserting NCR over four plots of land in the Trusan Land District of the Limbang Division. One of the plots had been alienated to the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA) under a lease. In this appeal the appellant was the LCDA, the third defendant below, appealing against the High Court's decision, with the native claimant as respondent.
The issues across the appeals were whether the claimant had proved NCR, whether the map he relied on should be given weight, whether the High Court's reasons were inadequate so as to warrant interference, and whether alienation of land extinguishes NCR and bars rectification of title. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence tendered to establish the customary rights over the four plots, the reliability and weight of the claimant's map, and the governing authorities on the proof of NCR and the indefeasibility of an alienated title.
The court held that the claimant had failed to establish native customary rights over the disputed lands. It further held, following the Federal Court authorities, that in respect of land alienated to the LCDA the indefeasibility of title prevails over any pre-existing NCR, so that alienation extinguishes NCR and a claimant cannot seek rectification of the register, the only remedy being damages against the Government. Resolving that issue in the LCDA's favour as well, the court allowed the LCDA's appeal with costs of RM30,000 here and below. The judgment illustrates the protection that indefeasibility of a title alienated to a statutory authority affords against a pre-existing native customary rights claim.
Summary
This is the LCDA's cross-appeal heard together with Appeals 654 and 671 regarding the same NCR land dispute. The Court of Appeal allowed LCDA's appeal with costs of RM30,000, holding that alienation of land by the State extinguishes NCR and bars rectification of title, with the native's only remedy being damages against the government.
What was the outcome of the LCDA's appeal?
The Court of Appeal allowed the Land Custody and Development Authority's appeal with costs of RM30,000 here and below. It held the native claimant had not established NCR and that, for land alienated to the LCDA, indefeasibility of title prevails over any pre-existing native customary rights.
How did alienation to the statutory authority affect the NCR claim?
The court held that alienation of the land to the LCDA extinguished any pre-existing native customary rights, since indefeasibility of the alienated title prevails; a claimant who had proved NCR over such land could not obtain rectification of the register and would be confined to a remedy in damages against the Government.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (q-01ncvcw-672-11-2021)