Court sets the time, woman teacher is told
Published on: Friday, July 01, 2016
Penampang: The Native Court here chided a lady teacher, who was defendant in a land dispute case, for complaining that hearing did not commence on time, even though the delay was less than 20 minutes. She was told that the court sets the time, not her and even prominent people have to conform to court decorum. Hearing continued after she tendered an apology.
ADVERTISEMENT
The dispute centred on a piece of land at Kg Limbanak where four brothers from Kg Hubah inherited the land from their late father and one of them sold his quarter share to a stranger without informing the co-owners. Later, the stranger sold the share to the teacher and she was proven the legal owner of one lot. However, the three brothers and the teacher failed to agree on the method of subdivision in chambers.In the dock, the eldest brother as plaintiff, said their proposed plan of subdivision was prepared without the participation of the teacher. He denied that the purpose was to choose the better part of the land for themselves.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said their late father had advised them not to sell "tanah pusaka" (inherited land) but did not explain why his brother disobeyed their father's wish. He confirmed he is the owner of the existing house on the land.
ADVERTISEMENT
When asked why he proposed to give the piece next to the river to the teacher, he had no clue neither does he know what is the advantage but said it was up to the individual. He admitted that the land next to the river has some steep slopes. He also claimed that the stranger who bought the share previously was an Indonesian and questioned how a non-native was able to buy. The court told him that the issue was over as the present owner is entitled to buy the land. The plaintiff then queried how the teacher got a native certificate when she was only three years old at that time.The court admonished him for challenging the authority of the court in issuing the certificate.He disagreed with the counter proposal by the defendant, saying only that it is tanah pusaka and his brothers do not agreed, as they were not involved with the drawing up of the plan.The teacher said she disagreed with the proposal from the brothers and have prepared her counter proposal using professional at her own cost. No compromised was reached as both parties maintained their arguments.When asked for reasons, she said she bought the land in August 1988 in order to build a house next to her mother's land. The lot was shown to her by a previous owner with witnesses and documents as proof. The court told her to submit the documents as she did not bring them along. The size of one lot is 0.230 acre and there will be no open space as the original land is less than one acre. She said she only want her lot, not necessarily the original lot sold to her, willing to make a sacrifice and let the three brothers have the first choice and the lot with the house can go to the plaintiff. Lastly, she urged the court to inspect the land if there is still no agreement to the proposal.The court then showed the counter proposal, commenting that it appears to be fair and suitable to everyone as each has access to the river and the road on the other side.The second brother was asked if he agreed to the proposal and to choose his preferred lot. After hesitation, he marked the lot next to the plaintiff's lot. However, the plaintiff was warned tersely for interrupting his brother as his turn to address the court had ended.When the third brother was called, he disagreed to the proposal, saying it is tanah pusaka, the land given to the teacher is flat but could not justify why he wants the teacher to take all the land near the river.Since there are still two lots left to choose, the court let the teacher chose her lot and called for a 15-minute break after which the judges came back and announced their verdict.The panel comprising District Chief Bryan Matasing, Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Charles Abel said after deliberating, they are satisfied that every party had equal privileges, that the river is necessary to both parties, all have access to the road and the plaintiff has agreed that the lot with the house should be his. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express’s Telegram channel.
Daily Express Malaysia
