PUTRAJAYA: Four Sarawak natives failed in their bid to claim RM51.76 million in damages over 474ha of disputed land in Saratok, despite the Court of Appeal ruling that the High Court had wrongly declined to hear their case.
In the main judgment, Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said the claimants failed to prove their native customary rights (NCR) over the land at Sungai Geruyu, also known as Sungai Ruyu.
A three-member panel chaired by Justice Wong Kian Kheong, sitting with Justice Alwi Abdul Wahab and Peters, unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Peters said the claimants did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they had occupied, cultivated or settled on the land in accordance with customary practices before Jan 1, 1958.
Their oral evidence was vague, while the maps produced were insufficiently reliable to establish the location and boundaries of the land in question, she said.
Peters also held that the title held by THP Saribas Sdn Bhd remained protected under the Sarawak Land Code.
"The claim was additionally time-barred, as the alleged trespass was discovered in 2005 but proceedings were only initiated in 2017," she said.
The appellants were Edward Gella Baul, Desmond Reynold Jemeni, Katol Anak Tutom, also known as Tatol, and Lengkong Anak Aba, who sued on behalf of themselves and 20 other claimants.
In a supporting judgment, Wong agreed with Peters but elaborated on why the High Court had jurisdiction.
He said Section 5(3)(a)(i) of the Native Courts Ordinance 1992 requires disputes over NCR land to be first heard by the district native court only when they are between natives.
Wong said the provision could not apply because THP Saribas was a company and not a native under the legislation.
He concluded that "the district native court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the land, Lot 21", adding that the High Court was the right forum to hear the case.
Wong also distinguished earlier court decisions involving disputes between natives over customary land.
Despite the findings on jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed with costs because the claimants failed to establish their substantive land claim.