'Rasul Melayu' dipenjara 10 tahun

SHAH ALAM, 6 Mac: Mahkamah Rayuan Syariah di sini hari ini mengekalkan hukuman penjara 10 tahun, denda RM16,500 dan enam sebatan ke atas ketua ajaran sesat "Rasul Melayu", Abdul Kahar Ahmad.

Abdul Kahar mengaku bersalah terhadap lima tuduhan pindaan mengikut Enakmen Jenayah Syariah Negeri Selangor 1995 di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah di sini, tiga tahun lepas. 

Bagaimanapun, beliau merayu terhadap hukuman dijatuhkan Mahkamah Tinggi itu.

Panel tiga hakim, Tan Sri Ibrahim Lembut, Datuk Md. Yusup Che Teh dan Datuk Aidi Mokhtar membuat keputusan itu selepas mereka sebulat suara menolak rayuan Abdul Kahar, 62, untuk meringankan hukuman yang dijatuhkan ke atasnya pada 21 Okt 2009. 

Dalam penghakiman mereka, Ibrahim selaku pengerusi berkata pihaknya menolak lapan alasan yang dikemukakan oleh Abdul Kahar bahawa Hakim Abu Zaky Mohammad telah terkhilaf semasa menjatuhkan hukuman itu ke atasnya. 

Mereka sebaliknya berpendapat hukuman penjara, denda dan sebatan itu sesuai dengan kesalahan perayu mengaku dirinya sebagai rasul yang sangat serius serta merosakkan akidah umat Islam.

"Dalam mempertimbangkan hukuman, perkara yang perlu diambil kira ialah kepentingan umum serta berat kesalahan. 

"Sebaliknya sebab-sebab yang mendorong kepada pemberatan hukuman ialah sejauh mana kesan kesalahan kepada masyarakat dan dan kesesuaian dengan keadaan jenayah. Dalam kes ini, kesalahan bukan sahaja terhadap dirinya, tetapi perayu juga bertindak menyesatkan orang lain," kata Ibrahim.

Dalam pada itu, Ibrahim berkata hukuman sebat ke atas Abdul Kahar hanya akan dijalankan selepas dia dirujuk kepada pegawai perubatan dan tidak ada asas untuk pihaknya campur tangan jika Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan semua hukuman berjalan secara berasingan. 

Sejurus Ibrahim membacakan keputusan itu, anak-anak perempuan Abdul Kahar di galeri awam dilihat berpelukan dan menangis sambil ditenangkan oleh anak lelaki tertuduh.  

Dalam prosiding hari ini, Abdul Kahar diwakili peguam syarie Musa Awang sementara pihak pendakwaan yang bertindak sebagai responden diwakili Ketua Pendakwa Syarie Selangor Abd. Shukor Abdul Hamid serta pegawai pendakwa syarie Siti Fatimah Maulana dan Shafezan Rosli. 

Pada 21 Okt 2009, Abdul Kahar dijatuhi hukuman penjara tiga tahun dan enam kali sebatan bagi tuduhan di bawah Seksyen 7 iaitu menjelaskan doktrin palsu dengan menyatakan bahawa sembahyang hanya cukup sekadar mencegah daripada membuat perkara keji dan mungkar saja dan ibadah haji adalah sia-sia dan merugikan. 

Dia dijatuhi hukuman penjara dua tahun dan denda RM4,500 atau setahun penjara bagi kesalahan mengisytiharkan diri sebagai Rasul Orang Melayu sedangkan ini bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam, mengikut Seksyen 8 (a).

Tertuduh juga dijatuhi hukuman penjara dua tahun dan denda RM4,500 atau setahun penjara bagi tuduhan di bawah Seksyen 10 iaitu mempersendakan dengan perkataan amalan dalam Agama Islam iaitu menyatakan: "Sekiranya ada orang yangberbuat mungkar barulah boleh  solat, mencegah kemungkaran ini adalah rukun, mentaati Allah itu adalah sujud, tidak perlu tonggang tonggek dan membebel seorang-seorang." 

Bagi tuduhan di bawah Seksyen 12 iaitu menghina pihak berkuasa agama dengan mengingkari dan melanggar arahan Mufti, Abdul Kahar dijatuhi hukuman penjara setahun dan denda RM3,000 atau setahun penjara. 

Dia dijatuhi hukuman penjara dua tahun dan denda RM4,500 atau setahun penjara bagi tuduhan di bawah Seksyen 13 iaitu menyebarkan pendapat yangbertentangan dengan fatwa iaitu mengaku dirinya Rasul diutus Allah untuk orang M elayu. 

Dia juga menyatakan bahawa sembahyang lima waktu tidak wajib; memadai dengan melakukan kebaikan dan menjauhi kemungkaran dan menyatakan bahawa ibadah haji itu tidak perlu ditunaikan di Mekah tetapi boleh dikerjakan di mana-mana bumi Allah. 

Abdul Kahar yang tidak bekerja didapati melakukan kesemua kesalahan itu di sebuah rumah beralamat No.44, Jalan Bunga Ros, Kampung Kemensah, Ulu Klang, Ampang, antara 19 Mei dan 23 Jun 2005. 

Abu Zaky turut memerintahkan Abdul Kahar dihantar menjalani pemulihan di Pusat Pemurnian  Akidah Baitul Iman di Hulu Yam Baharu dekat sini, pada enam bulan terakhir pelaksanaan hukuman penjara itu. 

Yong diperintah bayar RM1 juta kepada Harris

KOTA KINABALU, 29 Feb: Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini memerintahkan Presiden Parti Maju Sabah (SAPP) Datuk Yong Teck Lee membayar RM1 juta kepada bekas Ketua Menteri Tan Sri Harris Salleh kerana memfitnah beliau berhubung nahas pesawat pada 6 Jun 1976 yang mengorbankan Ketua Menteri ketika itu Tun Mohd Fuad Stephens dan 10 yang lain.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, berkata Yong bertindak di luar batasan dengan menyatakan bahawa “terdapat darah di tangan Harris” walaupun tidak salah bagi Yong meminta supaya satu siasatan semula diadakan berhubung tragedi itu.

Katanya beliau mendapati perkataan “jenayah” dan “pembunuhan” yang digunakan oleh Yong adalah satu fitnah terhadap Harris, yang mencetuskan spekulasi kononnya Harris tahu lebih awal bahawa sesuatu yang buruk akan menimpa pesawat jenis Nomad itu dan beliau (Harris) membiarkan Tun Fuad mati agar beliau dapat menjadi Ketua Menteri Sabah.

Harris memfailkan saman RM50 juta terhadap Yong sebagai defendan pertama, dan SAPP selaku defendan kedua, kerana mendakwa kononnya beliau ada kaitan dengan punca pesawat itu terhempas.

Hakim Abdul Rahman berkata beliau berpendapat RM1 juta merupakan jumlah yang adil dan wajar dengan mengambil kira semua aspek kes itu termasuk perilaku defendan dan juga hujahannya yang masih lagi memburukkan keperibadian dan kewibawaan Harris.

“(Perbuatan) ini amat kejam terhadap plaintif,” katanya.

Mahkamah juga memerintahkan Yong membayar faedah lapan peratus ke atas jumlah yang dikenakan itu sehingga ianya dilangsaikan.

Yong kelihatan tenang dan tersenyum ketika penghakiman dibuat manakala Harris tidak hadir.

Hakim Abdul Rahman berkata apabila Yong mendakwa “terdapat darah di tangan Harris” dan ini perlu disiasat kerana mungkin ada unsur jenayah, hanya berdasarkan apa yang dianggap sebagai “maklumat baru” yang diberikan oleh Anggota Parlimen Gua Musang, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Yong telah bertindak di luar batasan tanpa dapat membezakan antara ulasan adil dan sesuatu yang berniat jahat.

Pada hari pertama perbicaraan pada 16 Nov tahun lepas, Harris memberitahu mahkamah bahawa Yong telah tersalah dalam membuat kenyataan, fakta dan takrif, dengan meminta supaya tragedi itu disiasat semula bagi menghapuskan sebarang keraguan mengenai punca sebenar nahas itu selepas keterangan Tengku Razaleigh tentang bagaimana beliau (Tengku Razaleigh) tidak menaiki pesawat itu di saat akhir dan ini telah menyelamatkan nyawa beliau.

Mahkamah menolak permohonan Yong dan SAPP bagi menangguhkan pelaksanaan perintah itu sehingga rayuan dibuat kerana kedua-dua defendan itu tidak dapat memberikan alasan luar biasa bagi mewajarkan penangguhan itu.

Yong dan SAPP diwakili peguam Datuk Simon Shim manakala Yunof Maringking mewakili Harris.

Perbicaraan selesai pada 23 Dis tahun lepas.-Bernama

KELANTAN SAMAN PETRONAS: ISU AWAL DIBICARAKAN 1 JUN

KUALA LUMPUR, 20 Feb, (Bernama): Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini menetapkan 1 Jun tarikh membicarakan isu awal soal perundangan dalam saman yang dikemukakan kerajaan negeri Kelantan terhadap Petronas.

Hakim Datin Zabariah Mohd Yusof memutuskan tarikh itu dalam kamarnya setelah menemui peguam Rahayu Mumazaini bagi kerajaan Kelantan dan Peguam Persekutuan Idamaliza Maarof bagi pihak defendan.

Pada 18 Jan lepas Mahkamah Tinggi memberi kebenaran kepada permohonan Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Petronas supaya hakim menentukan kes saman itu diputuskan mengikut isu perundangan.

Kedua-dua pihak itu meminta hakim menentukan kes mengikut isu perundangan di bawah perkara 14A Perintah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan perkara 33 peraturan yang sama tanpa perlu diadakan perbicaraan sepenuhnya. 

Kerajaan negeri Kelantan menyaman Petronas kerana dikatakan mengingkari kontrak supaya membayar tunai kepada Kelantan bagi hasil minyak.

Dalam samannya yang dikemukakan pada 30 Ogos 2010, pihak plaintif menamakan Petronas sebagai defendan pertama.

Kerajaan Persekutuan bagaimanapun berjaya dalam permohonan mencelah dan dinamakan defedan kedua dalam saman tersebut.

Dalam pernyataan tuntutan, Kerajaan Negeri meminta Petronas membayar tunggakan dan bayaran tunai di masa akan datang bagi petroleum yang dikeluarkan di luar pantai Kelantan seperti termaktub dalam perjanjian petroleum.

 Kerajaan Negeri juga menuntut gantirugi dan kos. Bagaimanapun ia tidak menetapkan jumlah keseluruhan yang dituntut daripada Petronas.

 Dalam tuntutannya Kerajaan Negeri itu berkata Perjanjian Petroleum Kelantan yang dimeterai pada 9 Mei 1975 jelas menyatakan bahawa Petronas hendaklah membayar secara tunai lima peratus daripada hasil minyak diperolehi melalui carigali sama ada di kawasan pantai atau luar pantai.

Kerajaan Negeri berkata satu perenggan dalam perjanjian itu menyebut bahawa pembayaran hendaklah dibuat secara tunai dua kali setahun pada atau sebelum 1 Mac, atau pada atau sebelum 1 Sept. - Bernama

* KERAJAAN negeri Kelantan sudah mula bertindak tegas menuntut hak dengan menyaman Petronas kerana mengingkari kontrak supaya membayar tunai kepada Kelantan bagi hasil minyak. 

Perjanjian Petroleum Kelantan yang dimeterai pada 9 Mei 1975 jelas menyatakan bahawa Petronas hendaklah membayar secara tunai lima peratus daripada hasil minyak diperolehi melalui carigali sama ada di kawasan pantai atau luar pantai.

Dalam kes di Sabah, Petronas mungkin menunaikan janji membayar 5 peratus hasil minyak kepada kerajaan negeri Sabah, apa yang dituntut rakyat Sabah sekarang ialah supaya royaliti minyak dinaikkan kepada 20 hingga 50 peratus.

Bagaimanapun tuntutan itu ditolak mentah-mentah oleh Kerajaan Pusat. 

Soalnya sekarang, apakah kerajaan negeri Sabah berani mengikut jejak kerajaan negeri Kelantan iaitu menyaman Petronas dan Kerajaan Persekutuan?. – Editor Sidang Rakyat

HUKUMAN PENJARA DUA BERSAUDARA KES MEMBAKAR GEREJA DIKURANGKAN

PUTRAJAYA, 13, Feb Bernama): Panel Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini sebulat suara memutuskan mengurangkan hukuman dari lima kepada dua tahun penjara ke atas dua orang adik beradik yang didapati bersalah oleh Mahkamah Sesyen atas tuduhan membakar Gereja Metro Tabernacle di Desa Melawati dua tahun lepas.  

Panel tiga hakim diketuai oleh Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing berkata walaupun mahkamah rayuan bersetuju terhadap jatuhan hukuman oleh mahkamah lebih rendah yang kemudiannya dikekalkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, hukuman lima tahun penjara bagi kedua-dua perayu itu adalah keterlaluan.

Beliau memerintahkan penghantar surat Raja Muhammad Faizal, 25, dan Raja Muhammad Idzham, 23, seorang pekerja bank, menjalani hukuman mereka berkuatkuasa hari ini.

Kedua-duanya dikenakan ikat jamin RM20,000 tiap seorang sementara menunggu kes rayuan mereka didengar. 

Dua hakim lain dalam panel yang mendengar rayuan hari ini ialah Datuk Abdul Malek Ishak dan Datuk Ramly Ali.

Hakim Low berkata mahkamah sudah mengambil kira faktor rayuan dikemukakan pihak penguam bela mereka, Salim Bashir, bahawa semasa kesalahan dilakukan kedua-duanya masih agak muda dan merupakan pesalah kali pertama.

 “Kedua-dua mahkamah bawahan sebelum ini (Sesyen dan Mahkamah Tinggi) telah dengan betul menimbangkan prinsip keterangan sokongan di mana kedua-duanya mempunyai niat bersama dalam melakukan perbuatan jenayah,” kata Low.  

Beliau berkata mahkamah juga mengambil kira tidak seorang pun cedera akibat perbuatan mereka itu, dan kerajaan membelanjakan RM500,000 dalam membaik pulih gereja berkenaan.

Hakim Low menegaskan bahawa mahkamah perlu mengimbangkan di antara kepentingan orang ramai, yang mana dalam kes jenayah memerlukan hukuman bagi mencegah, namun pada waktu sama kepentingan tertuduh juga tidak semestinya diketepikan.

Pada 13 Ogos 2010, kedua-dua mereka dijatuhi hukuman penjara lima tahun seorang setelah didapati bersalah oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur melakukan perbuatan jahat dengan membakar gereja di Jalan 4/4c, Desa Melawati pada 11.50 malam 7 Jan 2010.

Kedua-duanya didakwa di mahkamah bersama-sama beberapa yang lain yang masih bebas.

Pada 30 Julai 2010, seorang kawan kepada dua bersaudara itu, Azuwan Shah Ahmad, 24, yang dituduh bersama mereka, dibebaskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen tanpa dipanggil membela diri.

Pada 27 Mei tahun lepas Mahkamah Tinggi mengekalkan keputusan hukuman yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Sesyen.

Timbalan Pendakwaraya Azlina Rasdi tampil bagi pihak pendakwaan.- Bernama

COURT OF APPEAL REDUCES JAIL TERM IN CHURCH ARSON CASE

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 13, (Bernama): The Court of Appeal today reduced from five years to two the jail sentence on two brothers found guilty by the Session Court for an arson attack on the Metro Tabernacle Church in Desa Melawati two years ago.

A three-man bench headed by Justice Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing said the Apex court agreed with the custodial sentence meted out to despatch rider Raja Muhammad Faizal, 25, and bank employee Raja Muhammad Idzham, 23, by the lower court and upheld by the High Court, but felt that the five-year term was excessive. 

He then ordered them to serve their sentence effective today. Both of them were on RM20,000 bail, respectively, pending the outcome of their appeal today.  The bench, which also had judges Datuk Abdul Malek Ishak and Datuk Ramly Ali, had arrived at a unanimous decision.

Justice Low said the court had taken into consideration the mitigation factor forwarded by counsel Salim Bashir, that the brothers were relatively young and first offenders. 

 “Both courts below (sessions court and high court) had correctly applied the principle of corroborative evidence where both the accused had a common intention in committing the criminal act,” said Low.  He said the court also had taken into consideration that no one was injured as a result of their action, and that the government had spent RM500,000 in repairing the church. 

Justice Low stressed that the court also needs to strike a balance between the interest of the public, where in criminal cases it calls for a deterrent sentence, and the interest of the accused.

The brothers were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, respectively, after they were found guilty on Aug 13, 2010, by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for causing mischief by torching the church at Jalan 4/4C, Desa Melawati, at 11.50 pm on Jan 7, 2010.

They were charged along with several others still at large.

On July 30, 2010, a friend of the brothers, Azuwan Shah Ahmad, 24, who was jointly charged with them, was freed by the Sessions Court without his defence being called.

The High Court, on May 27 last year, upheld the decision of the Sessions Court. 

Deputy Public Prosecutor Azlina Rasdi appeared for the prosecution. - Bernama

Jaipin Mohigal vs Pengarah Jabatan Perhutanan Sabah

[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
1
MALAYSIA
IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK
AT SANDAKAN
5 SUIT NO. S 21 – 28 OF 2007
BETWEEN
JAIPIN BIN MOHIGAL [NRIC NO 500510-12-5403] … 1st PLAINTIFF
10 MAODI BIN MADILOH [NRIC NO 340102-12-5287] … 2nd PLAINTIFF
SALIPAT BIN KINDAWAN [NRIC NO 381007-12-5327]…3rd PLAINTIFF
AND
1. CONSERVATOR/
15 DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY DEPARTMENT …1st DEFENDANT
2. PIUS PRIMUS …2nd DEFENDANT
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF SABAH …3rd DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
20
1. BACKGROUND
[a] The Plaintiffs had on 17.11.2008 amended their Writ of Summons
and Statement of Claim by withdrawing their claims against the
25 Assistant Collector of Land Revenue Beluran, Sabah and the Director
of Land and Surveys Department as the 3rd and 4th Defendants.
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
2
[b] At the commencement of the trial the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Discontinuance against the 4th and 5th Defendants herein and the
Plaintiffs’ claim now is effectively against the Conservator/Director of
Forestry Department of Sabah who is the 1st Defendant, Pius Primus,
the alleged tortfeasor who is 5 the 2nd Defendant herein and who is an
servant or agent of the 1st Defendant and the Government of State of
Sabah who is the 3rd Defendant herein.
[c] The Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded on their contentions that they
10 were inter alia at all material times the owners in occupation and
having exclusive possession of parcels of various parcels of land
contained and described under their land applications.
[d] The Plaintiffs’ claims against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly
15 and severally are as follows:
[1] an injunction against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants and/or
their agents/servants including any third surveyors from
harassing threatening them and/or evicting the Plaintiffs from
20 the said land;
[2] an order that an Enquiry should be held/conducted by the 1st
and/or 3rd Defendants giving the Plaintiffs a fair hearing
pertaining to their native Customary Right/Tenure;
25
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
3
[3] a declaration/order that the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants’ action
to destroy and/or demolish their household items mentioned
under paragraph 22 herein is illegal.;
[4] special damages 5 for their loss of their houses including
household items and/or for the illegal acts/harassments/false
imprisonment.
[5] other consequential reliefs.
10
[e] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ defence inter alia is that the
various parcels of lands occupied and applied for, by the Plaintiffs are
part of the duly gazetted Paitan Forest Reserve and that various
notices to leave the said Forest Reserve were served on the Plaintiffs
15 and others.
2. THE PLAINTIFFS’ AND THE 1ST,2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS’
PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE TRIED
20 [a] The Plaintiffs and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have their own
proposed issues to be tried.
[b] The Plaintiffs’ proposed issues to be tried are as follows:
25 [1] Whether or not the Plaintiffs’ land is within the Paitan Forest
Reserve?
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
4
[2] Whether or not the burning of the Plaintiffs’ houses and
destruction of crops are/were illegal?
[3] Whether or not the Defendants are liable to pay for the
5 loss/damages suffered by the Plaintiffs?
[4] Is the letter of direction dated 9/9/98 [exhibit at page 13 of
PBD] from the Jabatan Hasil Bumi to the Lands and surveys
Department amounts to a direction to alienate the said land to
10 the Plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions under the Sabah Land
Ordinance?
[5] Whether or not the Plaintiffs are trespassers?
15 [c] The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ proposed issues to be tried are as
follows:
[1] Whether or not the Plaintiffs are trespassers in the Paitan
Forest Reserve?
20 [2] Whether or not the burning of the Plaintiffs’ houses and
destruction of crops were illegal?
[3] If the answer is affirmative whether the Plaintiffs are entitle
to be paid for loss/damage suffered by the Plaintiffs?
25
[d] An analysis of the Plaintiffs’ and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’
proposed issues to be tried, will reveal that the proposed issues are
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
5
substantially the same except for the Plaintiffs’ proposed issues [3]
and [4]. In the light of the aforesaid, my consideration of all the
Plaintiffs’ proposed agreed issues to be tried, shall cover all the
proposed agreed issues to be tried of both the Plaintiffs’ and the 1st,
5 2nd and 3rd Defendants’.
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE TRIED
[1] Whether or not the Plaintiffs’ land is within the Paitan Forest
Reserve?
10
[a] It is not in dispute that the Paitan Forest Reserve was duly
gazetted on 15/12/1961 vide North Borneo Government Gazette No.
17 and is more particularly delineated and shown on Plan No. 14208
deposited in the office of the Director of Lands and Surveys and
15 containing an area of approximately 272 square miles.
[b] From the pleadings and evidence of the Plaintiffs, they are
contending that the said lands that they are occupying, on which their
houses were constructed, are not within the Paitan Forest Reserve
20 and that they were on unalienated state land since the mid 1980’s.
They also relied on their land applications which were accepted by
the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue Beluran. The Plaintiffs
further stated that by a letter dated 10th January, 1998, the District
Surveyor Sandakan confirmed with the 3rd Defendant that the said
25 land applied by the Plaintiffs under PT 96082535 – 2552 are not
within the Paitan Forest Reserve.
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
6
[c] The Plaintiffs also relied on inter alia a letter dated 10/1/1998 from
the District Surveyor, Sandakan confirming to the 3rd Defendant that
the said Lands applied by the Plaintiffs under PT 96082535 to PT
96082552 are not within the Paitan Forest Reserve [refer to pages
7,8 and 9 of Bundle PBD] and 5 that the said Lands was an loggedover
area and submitted that as such, the said Lands therefore
cannot be part of the Paitan Forest Reserve. The Plaintiffs further
submitted that there was no notice from the Defendants that Plaintiffs
were trespassers for about 20 years since the Plaintiffs entered and
10 cultivated the said Lands in 1988.
[d] Since it is the Plaintiffs’ contentions, they bear the legal burden of
proving their case, pursuant to sections 101, 102 and 103 Evidence
Act 1950. Other than the testimonies of the Plaintiffs and their own
15 witnesses, there was no other evidence from other sources to
substantiate their case. It is my considered view that the Plaintiffs
have to prove that the actual location of the said Lands on which their
houses were constructed on the ground and that they are in fact
outside the Paitan Forest Reserve. They could have easily done so
20 either by calling the relevant staff of the Lands and Survey
Department of Sabah, or obtaining the services of qualified surveyor
and/or produced the relevant Global Positioning System readings
and/or grid references of their said lands, to prove that the said lands
are in fact outside the Paitan Forest Reserve but they have failed
25 and/or omitted to do so. It is one thing to say their houses on the said
lands were outside the Paitan Forest Reserve and another to prove it.
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
7
[e] It is possible that the Plaintiffs could have settled at the wrong
place or location. Throughout the trial there was no evidence on why
the Plaintiffs settled at the location, that they did and whether it was
as a result of a proper land survey.
5
[f] On the other hand the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have produced
various maps to prove that the Plaintiffs’ said lands on which their
houses were constructed, well inside the Paitan Forest Reserve and
as such they were trespassers. In support of their contentions the 1st,
10 2nd and 3rd Defendants relied on Exhibits D1 and D2 which are Road
Network Map of FMU2: Paitan & Sugut Forest Reserves and Peta
Lokasi Cerapan GPS: Kedudukan Rumah/Pondok Yang
Dimusnahkan (Bakar) Dalam Hutan Simpan Paitan, both maps
produced by Pengarah Pemetaan Negara Malaysia. As Exhibits D1
15 and D2 are official maps, there is a presumption in the Section 83
Evidence Act 1950 which reads as follows;
“83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by the authority of
Government.
20
(1) The court shall presume that maps or plans purporting
to be made by the authority of the Government of
Malaysia or the Government of any State were so made
and are accurate.”
25
[g] In the light of the above, I find that Exhibits D1 and D2 are
accurate and that the Plaintiffs have not shown that they are
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
8
inaccurate and unreliable. The Plaintiffs merely contend that Exhibits
D1 and D2 were prepared in the years 2005 and/or 2007 and that
such maps had no retrospective effect as the Plaintiffs entered and
occupied the said Lands in the 1980’s. I find that this contention is
wholly without merits as the 5 Paitan Forest Reserve was constituted
and gazetted on 15/12/1961, some 19 years before the Plaintiffs
entered and occupied the said Lands and it matters not when Exhibits
D1 and D2 were prepared as the purpose of Exhibits D1 and D2 is
inter alia to determine the boundaries of the Paitan Forest Reserve in
10 accordance with the relevant Gazette and the location of the
Plaintiffs’ houses on the said land. Exhibits D1 and D2 clearly showed
that the Plaintiffs’ houses on the said Lands are clearly within the
Paitan Forest Reserve.
15 [2] Whether or not the burning of the Plaintiffs’ houses and
destruction of crops are/were illegal?
The finding of this issue will very much depend on whether the
Plaintiffs’ houses and crops were planted within the Paitan Forest
20 Reserve and on my findings in Issue [1] above. In the light of my
finding in Issue [1] above, I find that the burning of the Plaintiffs’
houses and destruction of crops were not illegal as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Defendants have powers pursuant to Section 21 Forest Enactment
1968 to destroy any buildings erected in a Forest Reserve. Section
25 21 Forest Enactment 1968 states as follows:
“21. Any building, fence or enclosure erected or maintained in
a Forest Reserve contrary to the provisions of this Enactment
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
9
shall vest in the State, and the Director may destroy the same
or otherwise dispose of them as he may think fit.”
[3] Whether or not the Defendants are liable to pay for the
5 loss/damages suffered by the Plaintiffs?
In the light of my findings in Issues [1] and [2], I hold that the 1st, 2nd
and 3rd Defendants are not liable to pay for the damages suffered by
the Plaintiffs.
10
[4] Is the letter of direction dated 9/9/98 [exhibit at page 13 of PBD]
from the Jabatan Hasil Bumi to the Lands and Surveys Department
amounts to a direction to alienate the said land to the Plaintiffs
pursuant to the provisions under the Sabah Land Ordinance?
15
[a] I find that the said letter of direction dated 9/9/98 does not amount
to a direction to alienate the said land to the Plaintiffs and pursuant to
section 9 (1) of the Sabah Land Code, only the Minister concerned
can give general or special directions to the Director of Lands and
20 Surveys Department. In any event I hold that my finding on this issue
is academic because the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue and/or
the Director of Lands and Surveys Department are not before the
Court and this Court cannot make any order especially orders which
are adverse to party which are not before the Court. The declaration
25 and remedies herein sought by the Plaintiffs, if granted, would
adversely and directly affect the interests, powers and duties of the
Assistant Collector of Land Revenue and/or and the Director of Lands
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
10
and Survey of Sabah who under the Sabah Land Code has various
powers and duties, as state land could easily and without notice to
the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue and/or the Director of Lands
and Survey Department, become native customary land or alienated
lands. It is only fair, just and 5 proper that all affected parties be
brought and given a fair hearing and an opportunity to present their
case.
[b] There is absolutely no special circumstances why the Assistant
10 Collector of Land Revenue and/or the Director of Lands and Survey
Department of Sabah should not have been made parties to this case
since the declaration sought by the Plaintiffs, if granted, will directly
and adversely affected the interests of the Assistant Collector of Land
Revenue and/or the Director of Lands and Survey Department of
15 Sabah. In support, I refer and rely on the Federal Court case of
Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong Tak Thong [1983] 2 MLJ 320 and the
Court of Appeal case of Abdul Rahim Bin Aki v Krubong Industrial
Park (Melaka) Sdn Bhd & Ors (1995) 3 MLJ 417 where Gopal Sri
Ram JCA said at pages 423 and 424 as follows:-
20
“We think that the answer to the Appellant’s contention that
the action is properly constituted and may proceed
notwithstanding the non-joinder of the alleged defalcating
director is to be found in the following passage in the speech
25 of Viscount Maugham in London Passenger Transport
Board v Moscrop [1942] AC 322 at p 345:
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
11
I also think it desirable to mention the point as to parties in
cases where a declaration is sought. The present appellants
were not directly prejudiced by the declaration and it might
even have been thought to be an advantage to them to submit
to the 5 declaration, but, on the other hand, the person really
interested were not before the court, not a single member
of the Transport union was, nor was that union itself,
joined as a defendant in the action. It is true that in their
absence that they were not strictly bound by the
10 declaration, but the courts have always recognized that
persons interested are or may be directly prejudiced by a
declaration made by the court in their absence, and that,
except in very special circumstances, all persons
interested should be made parties, whether by
15 representation orders or otherwise, before a declaration
by its terms affecting their rights is made. In the chancery
division, in which this case started, the rule would seem to be
almost invariable, and the well-established practice in actions
by shareholders and debenture holders may be mentioned as
20 instances of the rule. With the greatest respect for the Court of
Appeal, I think that the amended declaration pronounced by
that court, even if the section were applicable, ought not to
have been made. (emphasis added)”
25 [c] Further in the Federal Court case of Kheng Chwee Lian v Wong
Tak Thong [1983] 2 MLJ 320, Seah FJ said at page 323 as follows:-
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
12
“In our judgment, the court below has no jurisdiction
inherent or otherwise, over any person other than those
properly brought before it, as parties or as persons treated
as if they were parties under statutory provisions [Brydges
v Brydges & Wood 5 [1909] P 187 Re Shepard [1920] P 71 and
Coleman v Coleman (1933-34) 61 IA 115]. The terms
“judgment “ and “order” in the widest sense may be said to
include any decision given by a court on a question or
questions at issue between the parties to a proceeding properly
10 before the court [see para 501 of Halsbury’s Laws of England
(4th ed.) Vol. 26 at page 237]. And at para 550 the following
passage appear:-
“Subject to appeal and to being amended or set
15 aside, a judgment is conclusive as between the
parties and their privies and is conclusive against all
the world of its existence, date and legal
consequences.” (emphasis added)
20 We are constrained to agree with the submission of learned
counsel for the interveners that the order of the learned judge
was wholly irregular insofar as it purports to affect the
registered title, share and interest of the said interveners in the
said land when they had not been made parties or given a full
25 opportunity of taking part in the proceedings in the court below.”
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
13
[d] Based on the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and prayers, it is clear that the
Plaintiffs’ claim is related to land rights or matters and the plaintiffs
ought not have amended their Writ and Statement of Claim, removing
the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue and the Director of Lands
and Surveys Department as a party 5 to this action. In the absence of
the Director of Lands and Surveys Department which is the proper
party to obtain remedies relating to land matters, this Court cannot
entertain any claims relating to land matters for inter alia the simple
reason that this Court cannot make any orders especially adverse
10 orders against a party who is not before the Court.
[5] Whether or not the Plaintiffs are trespassers?
In the light of my finding in Issue [1] above, I find that the Plaintiffs are
15 trespassers as they were occupying lands which are inside the Paitan
Forest Reserve.
4. ORDER
In the light of the aforesaid I therefore dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim with
20 costs.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2010.
……………………………………….
25 Y. A. TUAN LEE HENG CHEONG
Judicial Commissioner
Sandakan, Sabah
[CSS21-28 OF 2007]
14
Plaintiffs: Mr Seibing Gunting
Of Messrs Seibing & Co
Kota Kinabalu
5
Defendant: Puan Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof
State Attorney General Office
Kota Kinabalu.
Notice: This copy of the Court's 10 Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal
revision.