REM

159
LECTURER NAME:PUAN NUR BAIZURA BINTI
MOHD SHUKOR
 GROUP MEMBERS:-

NADIATUL AINA BINTI PUTERI NUR ALIAH BIN

01 03
HASLIN MOHD NOOR
-2021832418
-2021860462

NURATIQAH LIYANA BINTI THASHIRAA BINTI

02 04 IBRAHIM
AZMI
-2021851914 -2021857388

05 MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ BIN

BAHALUDIN
-2021449626
 1.0 PLAINTIFF

 Name: LAYAU BRAYAN

 Is the son of the late Brayan vide
 Layau Brayan received title to the land on 25.06.1991
as the beneficiary of the estate from his late father.
 1.1 DEFENDANT

 Name: Silly @ Lawrence Ak Manggat

(511101-13-5655)

-The respondent who built a house on the

plaintiff’s part of the land with the consent
of the late plaintiff’s father (Brayan)
 2.O FACTS OF THE CASE AND
ISSUES
2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant's father is the late Brayan. The Land was transferred to his son as the representative of the late Brayan's
estate by a transmission recorded on August 18, 1988 after the late Brayan passed away. On June 25, 1991, the land
was transferred to the appellant as the beneficiary of the late Brayan's estate. The appellant has been the registered
owner of the land from that time. There is also no disagreement that in 1978, the respondent built his house on the
part of the land with the knowledge and the agreement of the late Brayan and the respondent later improved the
house. The respondent claimed that he paid RM3500.00 to the late Brayan as an exchange for surrendering a part of
the land at no cost, with good intent and as a licensee. On September 7, 2017, the appellant, as the registered
proprietor of the Land, filed the above Originating Summons in the High Court, pursuant to Order 89 of the Rules of
Court 2012, to evict the respondent and other unknown people from the Land, and to take possession of the Land. In
response, the respondent filed the aforementioned Sessions Court Case by way of a Writ action against the appellant
on or about October 4, 2017. The respondent attempted to have the appellant's title to the Land revoked.
Alternatively, the respondent requested an order transferring the relevant portion of the Land to the respondent and
amending the appellant's title in the Land to reflect the transfer. The appellant counterclaimed for indefeasibility of
title, trespass, recovery of ownership of the Land, demolition of constructions on the Land, damages, and expenses.
 2.2 ‘’ISSUES’’
Both parties mutually agreed to have both the above Originating Summons and
the above Sessions Court Case jointly tried by the High Court, with only three (3)
issues for determination namely:

1. ‘’Whether the Respondent obtained beneficiary rights to the abovementioned

Land as a result of long-term occupancy or representation’’

2. Whether the Appellant’s title take precedent over [the Respondent's beneficiary
rights over the abovementioned Land]

3. Presume issue 2 is ruled in favour of the appellant, whether the Respondent

committed trespass by keeping his house thereon, and if so, what is the appropriate
duration."
 “PLAINTIFF
ARGUMENT’’

 Plaintiff argued that his late father only allowed the respondent to live
temporarily on the said portion of the land at no cost, in good faith and as a
licensee only. Thereafter, on 7.9.2017 the plaintiff as the registered owner
acted by initiating an originating suit under order 89 of the Rules of Court
2012 in the High Court to evict the defendant as well as other unidentified
persons who were on the land and for land ownership among others.
 ‘’DEFENDANT ARGUMENT’’

 The defendant entered into an agreement with the late father of the plaintiff
(Brayan) to build a house or live on the land. Then he wants to make an
improvement where the defendant thinks and assumes that after he pays RM
3,500.00 to the late father of the plaintiff (Brayan), he will hand over part of
the land to the defendant
 3.0 COURT DECISION

Plaintiff has failed to show solid evidence that he is entitled to the ownership of the land. In this case,
he stated the right to claim ownership of the land since he had paid 3500 to the late Brayan as well
as the equity fees that had been paid. In this regard, he stated that he (plaintiff) was entitled to
remain occupying the land because of the payment made. After the 30-day period has passed, the
caveat should be removed. Defendant failed to show evidence that he was entitled to reclaim the
land whether to demolish it or otherwise. In addition, the defendant also failed to confirm that the
plaintiff encroached on the land. In this case, the defendant also failed to obtain compensation for
the encroachment that occurred to obtain revenue from the rental of the land. Each party is
responsible for the costs to be paid for fairness in the distribution of equal parts. The appellant,
aggrieved by the decision of the learned High Court Judge, filed an appeal against the judgment
section where the learned High Court Judge directed that the respondent be allowed to remain on
the land indefinitely.
According to the Statement of Issues Agreed for Trial, the question for trial is whether the respondent acquired beneficiary
rights over the Land as a result of long -standing ownership and representation, as shown in the Statement of Issues
Agreed for Trial. Basically, the respondent claimed that he was entitled to a share of the Land because his house was
built, and even the appellant’s ownership of the Land wanted to be changed by ordering the respondent to move out
of the land. This is because the respondent and the late Brayan, had no written communication. In addition, the
Respondent did not rely on an oral agreement, nor a clear or concluded contract, but instead relied on a fair estoppel.
According to a knowledgeable High Court Judge, the respondent failed to prove that he paid the late Brayan
RM3,500.00 in exchange for handing over the portion of the land to the respondent. In this regard it is difficult to show
evidence that the respondent had made the payment as Brayan had passed away and was unable to answer this
validity. Appellant also could not deny this allegation as he worked in Saratok, Sarawak for many years and had no
personal knowledge of what happened between his late father and the respondent. Respondents did not call any
community leaders or witnesses to corroborate their allegations other than the respondent and the wife’s testimony.
There is no receipt, writing or document to prove that he paid RM3,500.00 to the late Brayan in 1978. There is also no
evidence that the amount was paid in exchange for the late Brayan to hand over, sell, or transfer the land to the
respondent. as promised.
 4.0 CONCLUSION
-It is undeniable that the late Bahayan anak Changan alias Brayan anak Changgan was the proprietor of a Native Area
Land parcel identified as Lot 2767 Block 11 Muara Tebas Land District in a land title certified on 4.3.1986.
-The Land was transferred to his son as the representative of the late Brayan's estate through a transmission registered
on 18.8.1988 after the late Brayan passed away.
-The appellant has been the registered owner of the land since that time.
-The appellant stated that his late father simply allowed the respondent to stay temporarily in that part of the Land at no
charge, in good faith, and as a licensee, while the late Brayan was seen as being quite careless in entering into an
agreement for transferring over part of the Land.
-On September 7, 2017, the appellant, as the registered proprietor of the Land, decided to file the above Originating
Summons in the High Court, pursuant to Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012, to evict the respondent and other
unknown people out from Land, and to consider taking possession of the Land, among other things.
-The respondent tried to have the appellant's title to the Land terminated.
-The respondent claimed that the relevant portion of the Land be transferred to the respondent and that the appellant's
title to the Land be changed to reflect this. 1 LNS 481 Legal Network Series 4
-The appellant counterclaimed seeking indefeasibility of title, trespass, recovery of ownership of the Land, demolition
of buildings on the Land, damages, and expenses, among other things.
 Do you have any questions?

THANKS
WHATSAPPS US ON REM159
AAP1152I

CREDITS: This presentation template was created by

Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, and infographics &
images by Freepik.

Please keep this slide for your revision