State Government of Sarawak

On the court record

The State as a party in litigation over native customary rights to land in Sarawak and over the constitutional composition of the apex court under the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

The State Government of Sarawak appears in the corpus in proceedings concerning native customary rights to land and the composition and review powers of the courts.

One matter, at apex level, concerned an application for review. The court examined whether the applicant was entitled to review under rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court, and whether there was no majority decision because of the retirement of a panel member and whether that judge had jurisdiction to disturb findings of fact made by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. It also raised a constitutional question of court composition: whether the panel was required to include a judge with Bornean judicial experience, engaging section 74 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, paragraph 26(4) of the Inter-Governmental Committee report read with Article VIII of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, and whether the absence of such a judge constituted a coram failure.

Two connected appellate matters concerned native customary rights land, in which the State Government appeared as respondent and as appellant. The court examined whether native customary right had been proven by the claimant, whether a claimant's map should be given weight, whether inadequate reasons given by the High Court warranted appellate interference, and whether alienation extinguishes native customary right and bars rectification of title.

These proceedings place the State as a party in litigation over the proof and extinguishment of native customary rights and over the constitutional composition of the apex court in appeals from Sarawak. The narrative refers to the individual claimants by their role rather than by name, consistent with the treatment of natural persons appearing only as parties, reports the statutory and constitutional provisions the courts identified, and states outcomes only as recorded. The pairing of a constitutional challenge to apex-court composition with substantive native-customary-rights appeals shows the State defending both the procedural integrity of the courts and the merits of the land determinations.