J U S T I C E

S E R V E D
f e a t u r i n g G r o u p 6

QUESTION J MUHAMMAD IZZ HAKIM BIN

RAMLI - 2020894654

TENGKU MAWADDAH BINTI

Define 'adequate compensation' as
prescribed in Article 13 of the Federal
Constitution.
TENGKU MAIZAL - 2020454298
TRISHA ISABELLE VOLIN -
2020881658

NUR NADIA BINTI MD UZAIRIN -

2020855516
 DEFINITION
Article 13 of the Federal Constitution

Article 13 of the Federal Constitution highlights the rights that an individual has to property.
According to the article:

1. No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with the law.

2. No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate
compensation.

“These people live from the hunting of animals in the jungle

CASE: Sagong bin Tasi & Ors v
Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors.
In the case, the native
inhabitants had their land taken
away by the state with what they
claimed as inadequate
compensation. Thus, the issue
and the collection of jungle produce. Those are the only
source of their livelihood and income. Can these rights be
taken away by the government without compensation? At a
glance this could be done, but upon looking further and
deeper, it is my opinion that compensation ought to be made.
This can be discerned from s 11 of the Act, which guarantees
adequate compensation for the land, bearing rubber or fruit
trees claimed by the aboriginal people, that is alienated. It is
clear to me that the land on which those trees are planted is
either a reserve land for the aboriginal people or an area where
they had a right to access, which is a jungle reserve. In the first
case, there is no problem because it is their reserved land. In

of what counts as ‘adequate the second case, it is clear that the land belongs to the state
but they were planted by the aborigines. As such, adequate
compensation’ was put into compensation must be made for these trees but not for the

questioning. Among the land. In the present case, I am of the view that adequate
compensation for the loss of livelihood and hunting ground
relevant notes to be taken is; ought to be made when the land where the plaintiffs normally
went to look for food and produce was acquired by the
government. The compensation is not for the land but for what
is above the land over which the plaintiffs have a right.”

Thus, it can be stated that what constitutes ‘adequate compensation’ is dependent on whether the land is
held by the specific party and whether what exists on the land is borne out of the work by that party. If the
party owns that land then he/she shall be compensated for the land that had been taken. However, if the
land does not belong to the party but what exists on the land is borne out of the work of the party, such as
the trees planted by the natives, then the party shall only be compensated for the products that exist on the
land but not the land itself.
 FACTS

1. The plaintiff refused to comply for the simple reason that they were dissatisfied
with the payout sum. The first defendant argued that the property belonged to the
state, and the defendants refused to acknowledge that the plaintiffs had any
proprietary or other interest in the land.

2.On the 13th of February 1996, the Sepang Land Administrator issued written
notices to the plaintiffs requiring them to vacate the land they were occupying
within 14 days or face compliance action ('the notices').

3.The plaintiffs were summoned by the Sepang police on March 21, 1996, to the
Dengkil police station to obtain their compensation checks. The cheques were
only obtained by the third and seventh plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs obtained their small settlement checks on June 14, 1996, under
protest and without prejudice to their legal rights.

ISSUES

1. Whether the first defendant has been correctly cited as a party

2. Whether the public officer who issued the allegedly invalid notices to
vacate the land and thereby committed trespass to the land must be
identified

3. Whether the native people had been 'adequately compensated' for the
land taken from them
RATIO
DECIDENDI

The question that need to be answer is whether the

plaintiffs should be allowed to adduce oral histories of the
aboriginal societies relating to their practices, customs and
traditions and on their relationship with the land. The
Temuans which is the plaintiff had acquired rights over the
said lands by land use and occupation through customs,
original possession and usufructuary derived from their
forefathers and still continuing up to the present time,
notwithstanding the past or present legislations pertaining
to land.