The Sun & NST 27 Feb 1999 27 Feb 1999 Ch

 

THE SUN, February 27 1999    

Fashion designer sues police and govt for unlawful arrest

KUALA LUMPUR, Friday – Fashion designer Mior Abdul Razak Yahya is suing the police and government for unlawful arrest and detention.

He is seeking a declaration that his arrest and detention infringed his basic right under the Federal Constitution.

He is also seeking RM225,000 in special damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest and cost.

In the suit filed by his lawyer, Jerald Allen Gomez at the Civil High Court registry in Wisma Denmark at about 11am today, Mior, 32, named CID assistant director SAC 1 musa Hassan, the Inspector-General of police and the government as first, second and third defendant.

On Sept 30, last year, former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was charged in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court with performing unnatural sex with Mior in Room 758 at the PJ Hilton Hotel between 4.50pm and 5.50pm on Dec 3, 1992.

In his statement claim, Mior said that he was arrested without reasonable grounds at his business partner’s house in Taman Cempaka on Sept 19, last year.

Mior alleged he was forced to strip before a magistrate and perform lewd acts while in detention and also coerced to repeat untrue stories recorded on video tape as well as give false statements to a magistrate and solicitor of the defendants choice.

Owing to this, he suffered nervous shock, mental trauma, distress, migraine and injury to his arm, he said.

Mior said that this arrest caused him to lose his business run under the name “Mior Appareals” as well as his clients who are mainly VIPs, including former Deputy Prime Minister’s wife Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, the Brunei royal family and local artistes.

Mior said he was only able to relate his story to his family when he was allowed to return homr to Perak for Hari Raya last month.

 

NST, February 27 1999

Designer seek declaration arrest, detention were unlawful

KUALA LUMPUR, Friday – Fashion designer Mior Abdul Razak Yahya has filed a suit seeking a declaration that his arrest and detention were unlawful as they had infringed his right under the federal Constitution.

He named as defendant the Criminal Investigation Department’s deputy director SAC (1) Musa Hassan the inspector-general of police and government.

The writ of summons was filed by Messrs Jerals Gomez and Associates in the High Court (civil division) registry at Wisma Denmark on Jalan Ampang today.

Mior, 33, who was present with his lawyer Jerald  Allen Gomezis seeking compensation and damages for each and every infringement of his basic right.

These included general damages for assault and battery, injury to reputation and business, aggration damages  and special damages of RM225,000.

On Sept 30 last year, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was charged with voluntarily committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Mior in a room at Petaling Jaya Hilton Hotel on Dec 3 1992.

In his suit, Mior claimed that on Sept 19 last year, the police under the direction and instruction of Musa and with the Knowledge of the IGP broke into his residence in an intimidating manner and arrested him without any reasonable ground.

Mior said his detention for the first 24 hours and/or 14 days thereafter was wrongful and without any reasonable ground.

He listed the particulars of the infringement which included the failure him immediately or within a reasonable time the grounds of his arrest.

Mior also alleged the police failed to take immediate action to inform him of the offence committed, if any, and made an arrest without a warrant.

He claimed the police who were in plain clothes, failed to identify themselves or show an authority or power and also to undergo a physical and anal examination without his consent.

He claimed he was forced to strip in front of a magistrate and another non-police personnel.

Mior alleged he was forced to perform lewd acts, adding that these details would be “forwarded” to the court.

He also alleged that he was forced to smoke and drink substances which cause his mind and body to be disturbed.

Mior claimed he was forced to repeat stories that were not true before a video camera, police personnel and a magistrate.

He also alleged he was refused an advocate  and solicitor of his own choice and forced to meet one chosen by the defendant.

Mior also listed particulars of injuries in his statement, which included nervous shock, metal trauma, distress and injury to the hand.

He claimed the actions of the police had embarrassed him and hurt his business and reputation with his clients distancing themselves from him.

The Sun & NST 27 Feb 1999 27 Feb 1999 Ch

May 1992 – Firm loses $1m to Videotape Pirates in KL 23 May 1991 – Thugs Working for Video Pirates

 

NST, FRIDAY MAY 8 1992

Videotape company ordered to observe copyright

KUALA LUMPUR, Thursday – The High Court today restrained a videotape company, its manager and an employee from infringing the copyright of Television Broadcast Limited of Hong Kong and Golden Star Video Sdn Bhd.

The order against Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times, Mr Loh Sang and Mr Loh Yit Pun was granted by Mr Justice Datuk Zakaria Mohamed  Yatim after a hearing in his chambers.

Television Broadcast Limited and Golden Star, represented by Mr Jerald Allen Gomez, obtained an order restraining the respondents from reproducing, letting out or distributing for the purpose of trade, any film belonging to the plaintiffs.

The respondents are also restrained from converting to their own use the copyright ic such film and the infringing copies.

Zakaria also granted other order sought by the plaintiffs relating to damages and the delivery of all infringing copies of such film in the respondents possession, power, custody or control.

An inquiry on the damages suffered by the plaintiffs will be heard before a senior assistant registrar on a date to be fixed.

In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said that Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times operated a business of letting out videotape to the public at jalan panggung, sri kembangan, serdang.

The business was not registered with the registry of business, they said.

They also said that at the premises, the company had a considerable quantity of recording equipment which it used for the reproducing of unlicensed copies in the form of videotape of film of which the ownership belonged to Television Broadcast and others.

They further claimed that the company distributed the copies for hire for the purpose of trade.

The plaintiffs said that a total of 476 infringing copies were seized from the premise between Jan 12 and July 13, 1990. 

 

 

BERITA HARIAN, JUMAAT MEI 8 1992

Pusat video dihalang edar film

KUALA LUMPUR, Khamis – Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini mengeluarkan perintah menghalang sebuah pusat video daripada mengeluarkan semula, menyewa dan mengedar bagi maksud perdagangan mana-mana filem kepunyaan Televisyen Broadcast Limited Hong Kong dan Golden Star Video Sdn Bhd.

Hakim Datuk Dr Zakaria Mohd Yatim, meluluskan perintah itu di kamarnya berikutan saman plaintif terhadap Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times di jalan panggung, serdang, Selangor yang dinamakan sebagai defendan pertama.

Turut dinamakan sebagai defendan ialah pengurus pusat video itu, Loh Sang dan seorang kakitangannya Loh Yit Pun, Plaintif diwakili peguam Jerald Allen Gomez, manakala defendan tidak mewakili peguam.

Defendan pertama didakwa melakukan kesalahan mengeluarkan salinan pita video tanpa permit sah mengandungi hakcipta dipunyai plaintif pertama dan kedua sebagai pemegang lesen yang eksklusif.

Pusat video itu juga didakwa tidak berdaftar dengan Pendaftar Perniagaan dan sejak 12 januari hingga 13 julai 1990 sudah membuat salinan 476 filem yang hakciptanya dipegang oleh kedua-dua plaintif kepada pita video.

Dr Zakaria mengeluarkan perintah menghalang defendan membayar kos, ganti rugi dan perkara lain yang difikirkan perlu oleh mahkamah.

Pada 3 mei tahun lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi mendapati Loh Sang bersalah menghina mahkamah kerana enggan mematuhi  perintah halangan sementara terhadapnya yang diluluskan oleh mahkamah pada 27 september 1990.

 Loh Sang didenda $10,000 atau enam bulan penjara jika gagal menbayar denda itu.

 

 

THE STAR, FRIDAY May 8 1992

Golden Star gets order against video centre

Kuala Lumpur: Golden Star Video, the sole distributor of Hong Kong Television Broadcast (TVB) videos in Malaysia, yesterday obtained a permanent High Court injunction restraining a local video centre from infringing its copyright.

Mr justice Datuk Dr Zakaria Yatim granted the order against Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times, its manager, Mr Loh Sang, and an employee, Mr Loh Yit Pun, and their agents from reproducing or distributing any films for which Golden Star is the exclusive licenses.

He also granted Golden Star damages for “conversion” (using another party’s property for own benefits), damages and costs.

He ordered Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times, to deliver all the copies of video that it had pirated.

He mad the order in chambers after hearing the inter-parte application by Golden Star counsel, Mr Jerald Allen Gomez.

The counsel for Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times, and the other two defendants were not present.

Joining Golden Star as plaintiff was Television Broadcast Limited (Hong Kong TVB).

In its statement of claims, Golden Star and Hong Kong TVB said Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times, which was not registered with the Registry of Businesses, had dealt in pirated video tapes.

 

NEW STRAIT TIME, MAY 22 1991  

Thugs working for video pirates

KUALA LUMPUR, Tuesday – Local video pirate syndicates are employing gangsters, drug traffickers and pimps to expand their business and thwart enforcement officer.

Golden Star Video managing director Sony Yap said today some syndicates, whose owner drive luxury car and earn more than &5,000 a day, were employing thugs to threaten enforcement teams and intimidate authorized video dealers.

“Many of our officer and authorize dealers have been threatened, beaten up or slashed with parangs by these thugs,” he told a press conference here.

He claimed the syndicates resorted to strong-arm tactics following increased pressure from the authorize and enforcement division of copyright owners.

He said the company noted that these syndicates had been getting away with their illegal activities by paying fines.

To overcome this, the company had resorted to civil action in addition to raids by Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry enforcement team.

Relating the case, Mr Yap said investigation by its lawyer discovered that the video centre, which was not a registered business, had been dealing actively in pirated tapes.

He said the company’s lawyers then applied for an injuction and a discovery order last month.

Armed with the injunction, they raided video centre and seized 755 pirates tapes last month. A further 635 tapes were found in the premises within a period of less than a week.

The lawyers then made an application to commit the owner to prison for contempt of court.

In another case, the proprieter of Pusat Video & Elektronik New Times in Sri Kembangan was fined $10,000 by the High Court after he had repeatedly failed to comply with earlier injunction, said Mr Yap.

 An anton pillar order has also been enforced on Pusat Video KL of Taman Cheras Indah, forcing the proprietor to close shop.

The company has advised the public not to deal with any video outlet served with an injunction as they  are also liable to be charged with contempt of court.

 

 

MALAY MAIL, MAY 23 1991

JAIL WILL END VIDEO PIRACY

THE best way to deter video tape piracy is to impose longer jail term and heavier fines, a video centre manager postulated.

In the absence of deterrent sentences, the pirates are becoming bolder, Golden Star Video Sdn Bhd managing director Sonny Yap said.

He said records show that the courts hardly, meted out jail sentences but normally fined the culprits between $1,000 and $10,000 a meager sum compared to the millions of ringgit they are reaping through their illegal activities.

“The heaviest fine imposed on video cassette pirates to date is $50,000 when the then Trade and industry Ministry enforcement officers raided an outlet in Petaling Jaya in 1984,” he said.

He claimed that the first video pirate to be sent to prison was a women who was arrested and charged for possession of 1,390 copies of infringed video cassettes early this month.

The women is serving a jail sentence at Kajang prison for contempt of court as she declined to reveal the identity of the owner of the piratesd tapes.

One of the reasons why video piracy in the country is flourishing is because the mastermind always remains anonymous, Mr Yap said.

“The real culprits, who are causing big losses to the industry, engage fall guys who are willing to come forward claiming the seized cassettes belonged to them,” he said.

“These people are willing to do this because they are paid well.”

 

May 1992 – Firm loses $1m to Videotape Pirates in KL 23 May 1991 – Thugs Working for Video Pirates

RM200,000 for Unlawful Dismissal Claim

1992 Judgement 1994 Judgement

 

THE STAR, SEPT 17 1994

Ex-MD gets RM200,000 compensation

IPOH, A former company managing director was awarded RM200,000 as compensation for his unlawful dismissal five years ago following a settlement in the industrial court here.

Associated Air-pak industries (Aapi) Sdn Bhd decided on settlement with Chin Yoon Loy halfway though the hearing on Wednesday.

The company said the settlement was reached without admission of liability.

It was also agreed that Chin would sell his shares to Aapi’s board of directors.

Chin had brought the case to the industrial court in 1990, claiming that he had been unjustly dismissed.

He said he was employed as managing director and was also a company director.

Chin said when he sought approval to sell his shares, the Aapi board of directors resolved to remove his as managing director on Sept 30, 1989.

He said that on Nov 12, 1989, the board further resolved to remove him as company director.

The hearing was before court chairman Tan Kim Siong.

 

THE STAR, JULY 19 1994

Former MD pleads not guilty

Ipoh: A former managing director charged with four counts of cheating his company pleaded not guilty in a magistrate’s court here yesterday.

Chin Yoon Loy, 45< was granted bail of RM2,000 for the first three charges and RM1,000 for the fourth charge, by magistrate Puan Indera Nehru. He raised the bail.

Indera fixed Dec 21 and Dec 22 for hearing.

Chin, who is alleged to have cheated Associted Air Pak Industries Sdn Bhd (Aapi) when he was the managing director,denied:

• DECEITFULLY approving a payment voucher and, therefore, cheated the then director, P. Chandran Kumar into signing a Development and Commercial Bank cheque for RM900.35 at the APPI office on March 7, 1984.
• DECEITFULLY approving a payment voucher and, therefore, cheated Chandran into signing a D & C Bank cheque for RM563.20 at the same office on Oct 30,1985 and
• DECEITFULLY claiming travelling allowance for five days instead of four and, therefore, cheated Chandran into signing a D & C Bank cheque for RM750 instead of RM600, on April 2, 1984

He faces a separate charge of deceitfully approving a payment voucher for travelling allowance under the name of Ghazali Jusoh and, therefore, cheated Chandran Kumar into signing a D & C Bank cheque for RM750 on April 2, 1984.

Chin is charged under section 420 of the penal code and can ge jailed a maximum of seven years if convicted.

Earlier counsel Jerald Allen Gomez said Chin had field a suit at the Industrial Court against APPI for unlawful dismissal.

He applied for the charges against Chin to be heard before the Industrial Court hearing in September, saying that since complaint, Chandran, was also involved in the Industrial Court proceedings.

However, Indera dismissed the application.

“I do not see any conflict in both cases (although it involved the same parties) as one is a criminal case and the other is an Industrial Court matter,” she said.

 

The Sun, September 26 1996

Oct 28 decision on discharge application

Ipoh, Wednesday – A magistrate’s court here will decide on Oct 28 the application by the prosecution to a discharge not amounting to acquittal for a former managing director facing four counts of cheating.

Prosecuting officer chief inspector Jude Pereira made an application to magistrate S. Indra Nehru that the accused, Chin Yoon Loy, be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

“I have received instruction that the DPP is reviewing Chin’s case and has directed a fresh investigation. It involves the same exhibits and witnesses and the prosecution wants a joint trial,” Pereira said.

Chin, former managing director of Associated Air Pak Industries Sdn Bhd (AAPI) is charged with deceitfully approving a payment voucher for a travel claim by Ghazali Jusoh.

He is accused of deceiving the former AAPI director Chandra Kumar into signing a D & C Bank cheque for RM750 on April 2, 11 years ago.

Chin faces three other charges of cheating kumar into signing a D & C bank cheque at the AAPI office at Jelapang Industries Estate here on March 7, 1984.

Defence counsel Jerald Gomez submitted that his client’s case should not be put on hold for an indefinite period without acquittal when the prosecution is unable to proceed.

 

RM200,000 for Unlawful Dismissal Claim

1992 Judgement 1994 Judgement

THE moment that all Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia had been waiting for came last Friday. It was the day the High Court ruled that seven Temuan Orang Asli in Kampung Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil, must be adequately compensated for losing their plots to development. Every Orang Asli read the ruling as a clear statement on their rights to their traditional lands. Simply put, in all dealings with territories belonging to Orang Asli, non-Orang Asli will now have to treat Peninsular Malaysia\’s First People as land owners rather than as squatters or as tenants-at-will.

Reports

13 May 2002 29 Apr 2002 21 Apr 2002 13 Apr 2002 NST 13 Apr 2002 UM

Judgements

12 Apr 2002

Reports

NST 16 Feb 2006 – Sagong Tasi Breaks Grounds on Human Rights NST 20 Sept 2005 – Court Affirms Land Belongs to Orang Asli The Star 20 Sept 2005 – Orang Asli Win, As Judge Dismisses State’s Appeal The Star 15 Jun 2005 – Judgment Reserved on Native Right to State Land

Judgements

19 Sept 2005

 

NST, February 16, 2006

Sagong Tasi breaks ground on human rights, 16.02.2005

How is Malaysia’s human rights law developing? Legal experts and activists tell SANTHA OORJITHAM that a recent Court of Appeal decision has been the turning point for upholding human rights norms.

SAGONG Tasi is a 74-year-old Orang Asli of the Temuan tribe from Dengkil, Selangor. He is poor, living without basic amenities and often ill. But he and six other family heads from Bukit Tampoi are at the centre of a landmark judgment which lawyers and human rights activists believe will make their task easier in the future. 

The 59-page judgment illustrated a move, in cases where there is a conflict between existing law and the Federal Constitution, to apply that law with whatever modifications are necessary to bring it in line with the Constitution.

Through such interpretations, judges say they are introducing international human rights law into the domestic system, while taking a liberal rather then a literal approach to the human rights guaranteed under Part II of the Constitution.

Last September, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier Shah Alam High Court decision that the seven Orang Asli were customary owners of a piece of land acquired for the Kuala Lumpur-Nilai Highway.

The High Court had declared that the Orang Asli owned the land under a customary community title of a permanent nature.

It ordered the Selangor Government to compensate them for the land and ordered United Engineers (M) Bhd (UEM) and the Malaysian Highwat Authority (MHA) to pay damages for trespassing.

The appellate court went further, allowing the Orang Asli’s cross-appeal for exemplary damages. (The Selangor Government, Federal Government, UEM and MHA are asking for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.)

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, who read out the judgment, said the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954, which was to “protect and uplift the First Peoples of this country”, was a human rights statute “acquiring a quasi-constitutional status giving it preeminence over ordinary legislation. It must, therefore, receive a broad and liberal interpretation”.

What Sri Ram and judges Datuk Arifin Zakaria and Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman did was to look at the conflict between Section 12 of the 1954 Act, which says, “the State Authority may grant compensation therefor” and Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution which states that, “no law shall provide for compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation”.

The Court of Appeal said the relevant section of the 1954 Act had to be brought into conformity with the Constitution. This was done, not by reading the words in Section 12 as giving the State Authority the discretion to grant compensation or not, but by reading it as, “State Authority shall grant adequate compensation therefor”

“Sri Ram’s view and the view of a number of human rights activists is that courts are free to construe statues as they think they should be construed,” says Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, deputy presidents of the National Human-Rights Society.

“All they have to do is look at the fundamental liberties in Part II of the Constitution and construe that broadly and dynamically.”

In a speech titled “Human Rights: Incorporating International Law into the Present System” at a LexisNexis conference in 2003, Sri Ram had explained that there were two ways to incorporate international law into Malaysia’s Constitutional law.

One way is through the “interpretive jurisdiction” of the courts.

“Courts may, through the interpretation of municipal law, in particular the Federal Constitutional, introduce principles of International human rights law into the domestic system.” the judge told the conference.

Sri Ram said there was “ample scope” for Malaysian courts to rely on international law principles and documents to develop the country’s human rights law. And the principal document, he said, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

Parliament passed the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 which says, in Section 4(4), that “regard shall be had to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution”.

“Since we are a member of the United Nations, where the 1948 Declaration is not inconsistent with the Constitution, we must adopt it,” agrees Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, chairman of the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights and Good Governance.

But, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department stresses: “The Constitution must prevail.” And legislation such as the Internal Security Act “must take precedence over whatever is provided for in the Universal Declaratiob of Human Rights”.

The Suhakam Act defines human rights as the basic or fundamental rights or liberties guaranteed in Part II of the Constitution.

“Courts are under a duty to take a prismatic approach when interpreting these human rights.” Sri Ram said, “On no account should a literal approach be adopted.”

He cited the example of freedom of speech, which would include not only the right to speak or print but also the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and freedom to teach.

“When prismatically interpreted, the Part II liberties are entirely consistent with the terms of the 1948 Declaration,” the judge said.

Human rights activists say the recent Sagong Tasi case showed such a “prismatic” interpretation.

The judgment stressed the “fiduciary” duty of the Government towards the Orang Asli, noting that “the very authority – the state – that is enjoined by the law to protect the aborigines, turned upon them”.

“The landmark ruling was a long time coming,” says Dr Colin Nicholas, co-ordinator  and founder of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns and expert witness in the trial.

“There is enough in the law to recognise and give due respect to human rights, but the authorities and the people were abusing the legislation and reading it to suit their own interests.”

The activist says it will be easier to take up such cases in the future.

Malik Imtiaz says the Sagong Tasi case is an “amazing breakthrough in human rights jurisprudence”, not only for the principles involved but also for the procedural differences.

“Human rights is not just about the substantive norms but also the procedures by which you bring your case to court and how you bring it,” he says. “There are many little facets in that judgment which are quite stunning.”

For example, the general rule has been that hearsay evidence is not permissible. But oral tradition was all that the Orang Asli had to back their claims to the land.

The Shah Alam High Court recognised their oral testimony, he notes. “They gave weight to that evidence, which has never been done in this country before.”

Calling the decision a turning point, Malik Imtiaz says: It is now easier for us to mount an argument against the Government of the State or the Federation for breaches of duty or wrongdoing, through recognition of the role of the Government as trustee of the people.”

Claimants, he says, will not have such an uphill tasks in establishing the Government’s fiduciary duty.

“By recognition of the Government’s stand as a trustee, that duty is implied and it’s easier for easier for lawyers to take that up.”

 

 

NST Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Court affirms land belongs to Orang Asli

PUTRAJAYA, Mon. – The Court of Appeal today affirmed the decision of a lower court which declared that a 15.39ha plot in Kampung Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil, belonged to seven Orang Asli from the Temuan tribe.

Judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram said the Orang Asli had ownership of the land under a customary community title of a permanent nature.

“The trial judge did not fall into any error when he held that the Orang Asli had rights to the land,” he said in his 59-page judgement.

Concurring with Sri Ram in the unanimous decision were Datuk Arifin Zakaria and Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman. They have since been elevated to the Federal Court.

The land was acquired by the Government to build the Kuala Lumpur-Nilai highway in 1995.

The plaintiffs – Sagong Tasi, 73, Kachut Tunchit, 40, Dabat Chabat, 74, Kepal Kepong, 64, Sani Saken, 37, Ilas Senin, 42, and Tok Batin Tukas anak Siam, 54 – sued the Selangor Government, the Federal Government, the Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) and United Engineers (M) Bhd for loss of their land and dwellings.

The four defendants appealed against the decision while the Orang Asli cross-appealed.

Sri Ram said the appellate court also agreed with the April 2002 ruling of the High Court in Shah Alam that the Orang Asli be compensated under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, which paid a higher amount, instead of the Aboriginal People’s Act 1954.

“The Aboriginal People’s Act deals only with claims which the Orang Asli may have for fruit or rubber trees. It has nothing to do with the deprivation of their customary land,” he said.

The appellate court also allowed the cross-appeal of the Orang Asli for exemplary damages, which the High Court did not order.

Sri Ram said the high-handed tactics were employed by MHA but it was fortunate the police were present to keep the peace.

He said the plaintiffs’ houses and meeting halls were forcibly demolished and they were asked to go and fend for themselves “in unkind weather”.

“Looking at the evidence in totality, I am satisfied that this is a proper case for an award for exemplary damages,” he said.

Sri Ram remarked that the incident was a sad case because of the treatment the Orang Asli received from the defendants, especially the State that was supposed to protect them.

Datuk Dr V.Cyrus Das, who appeared for the Orang Asli, said the decision was strong vindication of the land rights of the Orang Asli in the peninsula.

 

 

The Star WEDNESDAY 15 June 2005

Judgment reserved on native right to state land

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on whether several members of the Temuan tribe have customary title to a 15.39ha plot of land in Kampung Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil.

This is an important point because we need to decide whether they (the orang asli) have customary title on state land, as this is a matter of government concern,” Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who headed a three man bench, said yesterday.

The Selangor government together with United Engineers (M) Bhd (UEM), Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) and the Federal Government are appealing against the High Court decision on April 12, 2002, that the land that was acquired for the construction of Elite Highway in 1995 was customary and ancestral land occupied by that tribe for generations.

The Government and UEM took the case to the Court of Appeal before an assessment could be made on the amount the tribe should be given.

The Temuan tribe was represented by Sagong Tasi and seven others.

Earlier, Sagong’s counsel Datuk Dr Cyrus Das told the court that the Government should not deprive the orang asli of their rights as there was a global trench to award such rights to these people.

“Malaysia shold not be seen as taking a step behind,” he said, adding that countries like Australia and South Africa have recognised the rights of their indigenous people.

Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Abd Rahim Uda countered that the native land was not customary land as that privilege was only awarded to lands in Negeri Sembilan and Malacca.

He also said the Aboriginal Act was not written law that gave customary tenure to the orang asli.

UEM counsel Tan Sri Zaki Azmi said the High Court judge was wrong when he found that UEM and MHA had trespassed on orang asli land.

He argues that the Aboriginal Act was based on the premise that land belonged to the state, and the appellate court needed to only confine itself to this statute and the Federal Constitution.

 

Reports

NST 16 Feb 2006 – Sagong Tasi Breaks Grounds on Human Rights NST 20 Sept 2005 – Court Affirms Land Belongs to Orang Asli The Star 20 Sept 2005 – Orang Asli Win, As Judge Dismisses State’s Appeal The Star 15 Jun 2005 – Judgment Reserved on Native Right to State Land

Judgements

19 Sept 2005

Reports

NST 27 May 2010 – Orang Asli Win 14-Year Battle 27 May 2010 Ch The Star 27 May 2010 – RM 6.5mil Settlement for Temuans Whose Land Was Taken Away MKini 26 May 2010 – Finally RM6.5mil Compensation for Orang Asli The Star 26 May 2010 – Orang Asli Community to Get RM6.5mil Settlement 26 May 2010 COAC Insider 26 May 2010 – Mahkamah: Pusat Setuju Bayar Orang Asli Pampasan RM6.5juta Insider 26 May 2010 – Orang Asli get RM6.5mil

Video Clips
Malaysiakini tv 19381 Malaysiakini tv 20172

 

New Straits Times Thursday, MAY 27, 2010
Orang Asli win 14-year battle

PUTRAJAYA: Twenty-six families of the Temuan tribe in Dengkil whose land was acquired to build a highway 14 years ago will finally be paid RM6.5 million as compensation.

This landmark settlement was recorded yesterday between seven plaintiffs and the Federal Government which recognises the right of the Orang Asli to their 38 acres of customary land in Kampung Bukit Tampoi, which was taken to build the Nilai-Banting highway. 
Federal Court judges Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria, Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Datuk Seri James Foong, who recorded the settlement yesterday, were told by senior federal counsel Datuk Kamaludin Md Said that the Federal Government, United Engineers (Malaysia) Bhd (UEM) and Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) were withdrawing their appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision.

THE Court of Appeal had on Sept 19, 2005, upheld the Shah Alam HighCourt’s decision declaring Sagong Tasi and six others- Kachut Tunchit (deceased), 45, Dabat Chabat, 79, Kepal Kepong, 69, Sani Saken, 41, Ilas Senin, 47, and Tok Batin Tukas anak Siam (deceased), 59, – as customary owners of the plot of land in Kampung Bunkit Tampoi.

It affirmed the High Court’s decision that the Orang Asli of the Temuan tribe owned the land under a customary community title of a permanent nature.

Since their constitutional rights had been violated, the court ordered that the Orang Asli be paid the market value as provided for under the Land Acquisition Act 1960.

Yesterday, Kamaludin told the court that the Federal Government, UEM and MHA were withdrawing their appeals on terms.

The terms, which were read out in court, were that the appellants were to withdraw their respective appeal without costs and that MHA was to pay RM6.5 million as full and final settlement within a month from yesterday.

The money, as stated in the terms agreed, was to be deposited with the Shah Alam High Court for disbursement to the respondents and any other individuals who were staying on the land which was taken.

 In 1996, the Temuan tribe, with the help of a team of pro bono lawyers from the Bar Council, took their case to the Shah Alam High Court after their land was acquired to build the highway leading to the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

The original defendants included the Selangor government.

In 2002, the High Court ruled that the Orang Asli enjoyed native title rights over their traditional land and that they should be compensated.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal but lost. They then appealed to the Federal Court and were granted leave in 2006.

In April last year, the Selangor government changed hands from Barisan Nasional to Pakatan Rakyat, and the new state government pulled out of the appeal, saying that to continue would amount to breaching its promise to recognise the land rights of the indigenous people of Malaysia.

Yesterday, Sagong Tasi, who was present with about 50 tribe members, said they were happy with the settlement news.

“It has been a long time since we began this court battle. Although it is not much when divided among our tribe, it is still something and I am grateful.”

He said he was already old and his health was deteriorating.

“Who knows, maybe I am still not too old to buy a house or get married again with the money,” he added.

 

 

The Star, 27 May, 2010

RM6.5mil settlement for Temuans whose land was taken away

PUTRAJAYA: It took 14 years for 26 orang asli families, who had their land snatched away to make way for a highway, to see justice done — the Federal Court recorded a RM6.5mil landmark settlement.

The apex court ordered the Malaysian Highway Authority (LLM) yesterday to pay members of the Temuan tribe who were forced to leave their homes when the Nilai-Banting Highway was constructed in 1995.

Although the defendants were the LLM, Government and United Engineers (M) Bhd (UEM), only LLM was required to pay the sum under the terms of settlement.

The highway authority has been ordered to pay the settlement to the Temuan tribe, who were living in the Bukit Tampoi area, when their land was forcibly taken.

Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria, who chaired a three-man Bench, noted that the LLM would deposit the sum to the Shah Alam High Court for disbursement of the funds to the orang asli families.

Justice Arifin, who sat with Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judge Justice James Foong Cheng Yuen, recorded that LLM would pay the full settlement within a month from yesterday.

The Federal Court noted the terms of agreement supplied by the parties — LLM, the Federal Government and UEM through Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Kamaludin Md Said.

Seven orang asli who initiated the suit could apply directly to the Shah Alam High Court for their compensation. They are Sagong Tasi, Kachut Tunchit, Dabat Anak Chabat, Kepal Anak Kepong, Sani Saken, Ilas Senin and Tukas Anak Siam.

The three appeals filed by the defendants would be withdrawn due to the settlement.

According to the orang asli’s lawyer David D. Mathew, the settlement was made after his clients had agreed to not seek costs and damages awarded by the Shah Alam High Court earlier.

He also said four of the orang asli who were plaintiffs in the suit, had died.

In 1995, a total of 38.47 acres (15.57ha) was acquired from the orang asli in Dengkil without compensation being paid to make way for the construction of the highway.

Thirteen houses were affected apart from the Balai Adat and Balai Raya. The land had also contained oil palm, rubber, fruit trees and other crops.

Some of the orang asli families are living in the areas on both sides of the highway presently.

In April 1996, the Temuans took their case to the Shah Alam High Court with a team of pro bono lawyers from the Bar Council.

On April 12, 2002, the Shah Alam High Court ruled in a landmark decision that the orang asli enjoyed native title rights over their traditional land and that they were to be compensated according to the Land Acquisition Act.

The defendants appealed but lost in the Court of Appeal on Sept 19, 2005.

They then appealed to the Federal Court and obtained leave to appeal on Nov 21, 2006.

On April 22, 2009, the Selangor government, which was initially one of the four parties named by the orang asli in their lawsuit, had changed hands from Barisan Nasional to Pakatan Rakyat and the new state government pulled out of the appeal, saying that to continue would breach its promise to recognise the land rights of the orang asli (indigenous peoples) of Malaysia.

Speaking to reporters, Sagong Tasi, 79, said he was relieved and happy over the payment, saying that the matter had dragged on for over a decade.

 

 

MALAYSIAKINI.COM, May 26, 2010

Finally…RM6.5mil compensation for Orang Asli

After a 15-year legal battle, 26 families of a Temuan tribe in Selangor have obtained RM6.5 million in compensation for their native customary land which was seized to build a highway to the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA).

Sagong Tasi, 78, and six others – two of whom have since died – had filed a suit against the Federal Government, the then BN-led Selangor Government, Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) and contractor United Engineers Malaysia Bhd (UEM).

This was after their land was acquired without compensation to build the Nilai-Banting highway that also runs to KLIA in Sepang in January 1995.

The landmark settlement made by the Federal Court this morning also has the effect of recognising the native customary rights of these Orang Asli to the 38-acre site of their former settlement in Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil.

Chief Justice of Malaya Arifin Zakaria, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and James Foong, who made up the three-member bench, ordered the sum to be deposited in the Shah Alam High Court within a month from today.

Senior federal counsel Kamaluddin Md Said – who was assisted by senior federal counsel Saifuddin Edris Zainuddin representing the Federal Government – said the other two parties, MHA and UEM, have agreed to withdraw their appeal over the Court of Appeal decision.

“We want the court to record settlement by both parties,” he said. UEM was represented by Harjinder Kaur.

Senior counsel Dr Cyrus Das concurred with the settlement.

He led a panel of lawyers, who included Steven Thiru, Jerald Gomez, Abdul Rashid Ismail and David Matthews, in representing the Temuan tribe.

Selangor legal adviser Zauyah Bte Loth Khan informed the court that the Pakatan Rakyat government had withdrawn its appeal last year.

Following this, the quantum – believed to be under RM200,000 per acre – is to be disbursed by the Shah Alam High Court to the affected parties after MHA pays up.

Landowners, not tenants

Although there are seven plaintiffs including Sagong, the decision affected some 26 families.

Their land planted with fruit trees, oil palm, rubber and other crops, all of which were destroyed along with a community hall.

The other plaintiffs were Kachut Tuncit, Dabat Chabat, Kepal Kepong, Sani Saken, Ilas Senin and Tukas Siam. Two others – Tok Batin Tukas and Kachut – are deceased.

The 15-year deadlock was broken on April 22 last year when the Selangor government – led by Pakatan since March 2008 – pulled out from challenging the suit.

However, the Federal Government and other parties obtained a stay on the court orders.

On April 12, 2002, Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Noor Ahmad had ordered both the federal and state governments, MHA and UEM to pay damages to the plaintiffs.

He recognised the existence of Orang Asli native (in this case the Temuan) land title in common law and ordered compensation to be assessed according to the Land Acquisition Act 1960. He also ordered MHA and UEM to pay damages for trespassing.

Prior to this landmark judgment, the government had considered the Orang Asli as mere tenants on the land.

The acquisition of their ancestral land is not protected by the Land Acquisition Act, unlike in cases involving private land.

On Sept 9, 2005, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, determining that the lower court was correct in awarding compensation.

‘Long time coming’

The affected parties thronged the court wearing traditional headgear.

Sagong said the decision has been a long time coming as he and the others had been walking in and out courts all these years to obtain justice.

He said many of them are old and two have passed away.

“They (the authorities) came to claim our ancestral land to build the highway. Three acres of my land, planted with crops, were seized,” he said.

“This land belongs to our ancestors as it has been with us for about 200 years and we felt that we had the right to be compensated.”

Although he was not satisfied with the quantum, Sagong said it is better than nothing.

“The government asked us to accept the sum as it says it had limited funds. We are thankful for this and thank the lawyers involved. It was a long struggle,” he said.

Asked what he would do with the money, Sagong said he would perhaps take 10 wives or build another house.

Exco: Decision made possible by Pakatan

Selangor executive concillor Elizabeth Wong said the Pakatan government’s move in withdrawing its appeal last year had paved the way for the settlement.

“As land is under the state’s purview, we in the Pakatan government respected the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in recognising it as part of their customary land,” she said.

“It took a year for the remaining parties to discuss the settlement.”

Wong said that, with the court decision and settlement, the Federal Government would have to rethink its current rules and position, and amend the National Land Code.

“There is an effort to amend the Act, which may limit the quantum of compensation for the land, as opposed to what they may have been accorded to if it is native customary land,” she said.

“The decision by the Federal Government to amend the Act should not go against the spirit of the court decision in this case.”

The Orang Asli have, over the past few months, increased pressure on the government to recognize their land rights.

On March 17, the community protested in Putrajaya to amendments in the National Land Code, among others.

Two months later, they handed a memorandum to the Rural Development Ministry over their plight.

 

 

The Star Online, 26 May, 2010

Orang asli community to get RM6.5mil settlement

PUTRAJAYA: After a 15-year legal battle, seven members of the Temuan tribe will receive RM6.5mil from the federal government as compensation for their native customary land which was taken to build a highway to the KL International Airport (KLIA).

In a landmark case, the Federal Court Wednesday recorded a settlement between them and the federal government which recognised the right of the orang asli to their native customary land in Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil.

Their 38-acre land was taken to build a highway to the KLIA in Sepang.

The apex court allowed the settlement to be recorded Wednesday after the federal and the Selangor governments agreed to pay the compensation to Sagong Tasi.

Sagong, 78, and six others of the Temuan tribe had the federal government, the Selangor government, the Malaysian Highway Authority and contractor United Engineers Malaysia Bhd (UEM) to court over the matter.

The deadlock was ended on April 22 last year after the Selangor government pulled out from challenging the suit.—Bernama

 

 

The Malaysian Insider May 26, 2010

Mahkamah: Pusat setuju bayar Orang Asli pampasan RM6.5 juta

PUTRAJAYA, 26 Mei – Selepas 15 tahun, tujuh orang daripada suku Temuan memperoleh pampasan RM6.5 juta daripada kerajaan persekutuan untuk tanah adat yang diambil bagi membina sebuah lebuh raya ke Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA) di Sepang.

Dalam kes bersejarah ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan hari ini mencatatkan satu penyelesaian antara mereka dan kerajaan persekutuan yang mengiktiraf hak Orang Asli terhadap tanah adatnya di Bukit Tampoi, Dengkil.

Sebanyak 38 ekar tanah adat itu telah diambil oleh kerajaan pusat bagi membina sebuah lebuh raya ke KLIA.

Mahkamah itu membenarkan penyelesaian tersebut dicatatkan hari ini setelah kerajaan pusat dan kerajaan Selangor bersetuju membayar pampasan tersebut kepada Sagong Tasi.

Sagong, 78, dan enam yang lain daripada suku Temuan memfailkan saman terhadap kerajaan persekutuan, kerajaan Selangor dan Lembaga Lebuhraya Malayisa (LLM) dan kontraktor United Engineers Malaysia Bhd (UEM) ke mahkamah mengenai perkara itu.

Pada 12 April tahun lepas, kerajaan Selangor menarik diri daripada mencabar kes Sagong. – Bernama

 

 

Malaysian Insider 26 May 2010

Orang Asli get RM6.5m in landmark case

PUTRAJAYA, May 26 — The Federal Court today recorded a RM6.5 million settlement for Orang Asli plaintiffs in a landmark land rights case.

The sum is to be paid by Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM) — on its own behalf as well as that of the Federal Government and United Engineers Malaysia Bhd (UEM) — to the Orang Asli applicants.

The case involved the forcible acquisition of Orang Asli land in Dengkil, Selangor for the construction of the Banting-Nilai highway in 1995. A total of 15.57 hectares were acquired from the Temuan-Orang Asli without compensation. The plaintiffs in the case are Sagong Tasi, Kachut Tunchit, Dabat Chabat, Kepal Kepong, Sani Saken, Illas Senin and Tukas Siam.

In 1996, with the help of a team of pro bono lawyers from the Bar Council, led by Datuk Dr Cyrus Das, the Temuans fought the case in the Shah Alam High Court. The original defendants also included the Selangor government.

In 2002, the High Court ruled that the Orang Asli enjoyed native title rights over their traditional lands and they were to be compensated according to the Land Acquisition Act.  The defendants appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeal in 2005 upheld the ruling of the High Court.

A subsequent appeal was then made to the Federal Court, which granted the defendants leave in 2006.

However, in April 2009, the now Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government pulled out of the Federal Court appeal, in keeping with its promise to recognise the land rights of the Orang Asli .

After negotiations with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, both sides have agreed to a settlement. LLM, as the acquirer of the land will pay cash compensation to the Orang Asli for the land taken, while the Orang Asli lawyers will waive all other costs and damages granted by the court.

As part of the settlement, LLM must deposit the payment of RM6.5 million at the Shah Alam High Court within one month from today.

The 26 families affected by the forcible evacuation can then claim the compensation from Shah Alam High Court, based on the amount of land that was taken from them. Outside the courtroom, Sagong Tasi (right) was delighted and said he was very satisfied with settlement.

“I am really happy after waiting for 14 years. I would not have been satisfied if the case was not settled; now my heart is at peace.

 “I am now old, can’t see and can’t walk comfortably. I am really thin. Now that I have the money, I don’t know what to do. I don’t know if I want to buy a new house and maybe marry,” said the 79-year-old man while laughing with the reporters.

Selangor state executive councillor Elizabeth Wong said she hoped the landmark case would make the government reconsider planned amendments to the Orang Asli Act.

 “With this landmark decision, I think the federal government has to rethink its current rules or process to amend the Orang Asli Act.

“Right now, there is an effort to amend the Act which would limit the kind of quantum that would be made [and] the size of land that would be given out as compensation.  

“[This was] opposed to the customary land that they should be accorded to. So the decision of the federal government to amend the Orang Asli Act should not go against the decision of the court in this case,” she said.

 

Reports

NST 27 May 2010 – Orang Asli Win 14-Year Battle 27 May 2010 Ch The Star 27 May 2010 – RM 6.5mil Settlement for Temuans Whose Land Was Taken Away MKini 26 May 2010 – Finally RM6.5mil Compensation for Orang Asli The Star 26 May 2010 – Orang Asli Community to Get RM6.5mil Settlement 26 May 2010 COAC Insider 26 May 2010 – Mahkamah: Pusat Setuju Bayar Orang Asli Pampasan RM6.5juta Insider 26 May 2010 – Orang Asli get RM6.5mil

Video Clips
Malaysiakini tv 19381 Malaysiakini tv 20172

Reports

24 Mar 2007 26 Jun 2005 9 Oct 2003

Judgements

23 Mar 2007 Court of Appeal 25 Jun 2005 High Court

 

24 Mac 2007

Warga emas dapat ganti rugi RM7.3j

PUTRAJAYA: Penantian selama lapan tahun seorang warga tua untuk mendapatkan tanah pusakanya yang ‘hilang’ selepas ditipu pembeli dan seorang peguam, berakhir semalam apabila Mahkamah Rayuan memerintahkan tiga lot tanah itu dipulangkan kepadanya.

Dalam penghakiman majoriti 2-1, Hakim Datuk Gopal Sri Ram dan Datuk Raus Md Sharif memerintahkan tiga lot tanah di Seberang Prai, Pulau Pinang, diserahkan semula kepada Sadiah Abdullah, yang kini berusia 70 tahun.

Bagaimanapun, Hakim Datuk Low Hop Bing, mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa pemindahan hak milik tanah tidak terjejas kerana pemilik akhir (iaitu defendan keempat, Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia) mendapatkannya secara bona fide (berniat baik).

Mahkamah juga mengekalkan perintah Mahkamah Tinggi pada 25 Jun 2005 supaya plaintif menerima ganti rugi RM7.3 juta.

Tiga anaknya Abu Bakar Ismail, Kalthum dan Rosli, yang menghadiri prosiding semalam, menyatakan rasa lega dan gembira kerana kes itu akhirnya diselesaikan.

“Ibu kami berada di kampong. Beliau kini uzur kerana sudah tua,malah tidak boleh berjalan.

“Kami masih belum memaklumkan kepadanya, tetapi kami yakin dia akan berpuas hati dengan keputusan ini,” kata Abu Bakar.

Beliau sebelum ini mengambil alih sebagai plaintif selepas ayahnya, Allahyarham Ismail Mohamad, meninggal dunia dua bulan sebelum keputusan Mahkamah  Tinggi pada 2005.

Pada 30 Julai 1999, Ismail dan Sadiah mendakwa kerugian selepas bersetuju menjual tanah mereka itu kepada seorang pembeli, Ismail Husin (defendan pertama), dengan harga RM7.5 juta, dengan bayaran RM200,000 dengan menyerahkan jual beli kepada peguam, Abdul Aziz Ahmad (defendan kedua) dan firmanya (defendan ketiga).

 

BERITA HARIAN 26 Jun 2005

Defendan bayar ganti rugi RM7.3j

KUALA LUMPUR: “Saya berasa lega kerana ibu bapa saya tidak perlu menanggung hutang lagi, tetapi agak terkilan kerana tanah pusaka kami terlepas ke tangan orang lain” kata Abu Bakar Ismail, anak pasangan Sadiah Abdullah dan Ismail Mohamad apabila Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan mereka tidak perlu menanggung hutang bank selepas dokumen penjualan tanah mereka bernilai RM7.5 dipalsukan.

Bagaimanapun dalam penghakimannya semalam, Hakim Datuk Ariffin Zakaria, menolak permohonan pasangan itu supaya dokumen asal hak milik tanah dikembalikan kepada mereka.

Ariffin berkata, beliau berpuas hati yang dokumen itu dipalsukan tetapi beliau terikat dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan yang memutuskan seorang pembeli tanah membeli geran yang sah walaupun ia membabitkan pemalsuan dalam membeli hartanah itu dengan niat baik.

Sehubungan itu, Ariffin memerintahkan pembeli tanah, Ismail Hussin, Abdul Aziz Ahmad dan firma guamannya, Tetuan Sajali & Aziz dinamakan sebagai defendan membayar ganti rugi RM7.3 juta kepada kedua-dua plaintif.

Selain bayaran itu, mereka juga perlu membayar faedah lapan peratus setahun bermula dari tarikh saman itu difailkan sehingga tarikh pembayaran ganti rugi.

Beliau juga memerintahkan ketiga-tiga defendan membayar ganti rugi teladan dan teruk kepada pasangan itu. Kedua-dua ganti rugi berkenaan akan ditentukan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar mahkamah kemudian.

Ariffin juga memutuskan defendan keempat iaitu Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia adalah pihak yang tidak bersalah dalam kes berkenaan.

 

NST, June 26 2005

Land gone despite forgery

Three ordered to pay RM7.3m to couple

KUALA LUMPUR, Sat: A couple lost their ancestral land despite the High Court’s finding that their signatures on bank documents had been forged.

The court however, ordered a land broker, a lawyer and his law firm to pay Ismail Mohamad and Saadiah Abdullah RM7.3 million, the balance of the price of the transacted land.

Datuk Arifin Zakaria, who sat as High Court Judge, said he had no choice but to rule that Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad had registered interest over three pieces of property in Seberang Prai Selatan in Penang.

Saying the case before him was “very difficult”, Arifin added that he was bound by a Federal Court Ruling in 2000 in making his ruling.

Arifin suggested to counsel Jerald Gomez, who represented Ismail Mohamad and Saadiah, that the case be taken to the Court of Appeal.

Arifin who was elevated from the Court of Appeal to the Federal Court last week said he accepted the evidence of handwriting expert Lim Yok Chaw who found differences in the documents allegedly signed by Ismail Mohmad and Saadiah.

On Dec 23 1999, the couple alleged misrepresentation, negligence, fraud and breach of trust over a sale and purchase agreement for their properties.

They had named land broker Ismail Husin, a lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad and his law firm Messrs Sajali & Aziz, the bank and Vest Hong Enterprises Sdn Bhd as defendants.

They claimed Ismail Husin had charged the three pieces of land, using the original title deeds, to secure a loan for Vest Hong in which he holds an equity.

The couple said Ismail Husin had earlier approached them to buy their properties for RM7.5 million.

They entered into an agreement on July 30, 1999 but only RM200,000 was paid to them although Ismail assured the couple the full payment would be settled in two months.

The couple said the bank approved a RM16 million loan to Vest Hong for the purchase of machinery and as working capital.

They alleged that Ismail Husin and Abdul Aziz released the title deeds to the bank as security for the loan.

Arifin, in his judgment ruled that Ismail Husin, Abdul Aziz and the legal firm were liable for their actions.

He said the bank too had knowledge of the fraud.

The Judge said Vest Hong was subsequently wound up and its directors had absconded to China.

Arifin, however allowed the couple’s application to order Ismail, Abdul Aziz and his legal firm to pay them the balance purchase price of RM7.3 million, inclusive of eight per cent interest per year, for their property.

By consent order, the couples were absolved from paying RM23 million purportedly owed to the bank.

Arifin also ordered Ismail, Abdul Aziz and the legal firm to pay general and exemplary damages and costs.

Ismail Mohamad, 75, a former harbor pilot with the Penang Port Commission, died on August 18 last year and his son Abu Bakar substituted him as the first Plaintiff.

Saadiah, 67, was absent from Court because she was not well.

Abu Bakar a marine supervisor with an oil refinery in Port Dickson, said he was glad the Court had ruled that his parents were not responsible for the (RM16 million) loan.

“The property has slipped from us but we are happy that those responsible had been ordered to pay the outstanding sales amount plus interest,” he said.

However, he was skeptical whether the family would ever recover the money following the land sale.

“If we do not get the money, we want the land back. We will make a decision soon,” he said.

Abu Bakar said a complaint had been lodged with the Bar Council against the lawyer and his firm.

Also present at the hearing today were Abu Bakar’s brother Rosli and sisters, Kalthom and Nurul Hayati. Gomez said the couple would only obtain a paper judgment if the Defendant’s did not pay up.

 

Utusan Malaysia

Wanita, anak lelaki dapat semula hak milik tanah pusaka

PUTRAJAYA 23 MAC – Seorang wanita dan anak lelakinya mendapat semula hak milik tanah pusaka mereka setelah Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini mengisytiharkan gadaian ke atas tanah itu kepada sebuah bank adalah tidak sah dan terbatal kerana dilaksanakan secara penipuan.

Dalam keputusan majority 2-1, Hakim Datuk Gopal Sri Ram dan Hakim Md Raus Shariff mengambil keputusan untuk membenarkan dengan kos rayuan yang dikemukakan oleh Abu Bakar Ismal, 38, dan ibunya, Sadiah Abdullah, 70.

Bagaimanapun, Hakim Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing memilih untuk menolak rayuan itu.

Dalam rayuan mereka, Abu Bakar dan Sadiah menamakan lima respondeniaitu broker tanah, Ismail Hussin; peguam Abdul Aziz Ahmad; firma guaman Tetuan Sajali & Aziz; pemegang gadaian Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad dan syarikat Vest Hong Enterprise Sdn. Bhd.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Sri Ram berkata, kes itu merupakan satu lagi keadaan yang menuntut mahkamah memutuskan siapakah di antara dua pihak tidak bersalah yang perlu menerima akibat perbuatan jahat pihak ketiga yang melakukan peipuan.

Katanya, pembatalan gadaian kepada pihak bank adalah kerana perbuatan penipuan oleh agennya, dalam kes ini ialah responden kedua, Abdul Aziz Ahmad dan firma guamannya, Tetuan Sajali & Aziz yang merupakan ejen kepada Bank Rakyat.

“Perkara ini adalah nyata dalam perunutkan Seksyen 340(2)(a) Kanun Tanah Negara, “tegas Hakim Sri ram.

Abu Bakar dan ibunya mengemukakan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah bahawa Bank Rakyat mempunyai hak terhadap tiga bidang tanah pusakan mereka yang digadaikan kepada bank itu.

Menjual

Pada 30 Julai 1999, Sadiah dan suaminya; Ismail Mohamad (telah meninggal dunia) menjual tiga bidang tanah di Seberang Prai Selatan kepada Ismail Husin pada harga RM7.5 juta tetapi hanya dibayar RM 200,000.00 sebagai wang pendahuluan.

Ismail Husin berjanji menyelesaika baki harga jualan tanah dalam tempoh dua bulan.

Ketika menuntut baki harga juala tanah itu yang gagal dibayar dalam tempoh yang dijanjikan, Sadiah dan suaminya terkejut apabila mengetahui tanah itu telah digadaikan kepada Bank Rakyat bagi mendapatkan pinjaman RM16juta untuk syarikat Vest Hong Enterprise.

Berikutan itu, mereka menyaman kelima-lima responden bagi mendapatka semula tanah tersebut dengan alasan perjanjian jual beli tanah itu dialkukan secara penipuan, pecah amanah dan cuai.

Pada 26 Jun 2005, Hakim Datuk Zakaria Arifin (kini Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan) telah menolak permohonan mereka dan memerentahkan Ismail Husin, Abdul Aziz dan firma guamannya membayar baki harga jualan RM 7.3 juta kepada Sadiah.

Hakim Arifin juga memutuskan Ismail Husin, Abdul Aziz dan firma guamannya perlu dipertanggungjawabkan (liable) terhadap perbuatan mereka menipu pasangan suami isteri itu dalam urusan jual beli dan gadaian tanah tersebut.

 

THE SUN August 23 2001

Five sued over purchase of land

KUALA LUMPUR, Wed: An elderly couple, saddled with a RM23.5 million loan repayment, are suing the purchaser of their land and four others for alleged breach of trust and misrepresentation.

Ismail Mohamad, 75, and Sadiah Abdullah, 64, allege that the buyer of their land, Ismail Husin, charged the land to a bank in return for a RM16 million loan.

They claim that Ismail charged the three pieces of land, using the original title deeds, to secure a loan for a company in which he holds equity.

The suit, filed through Messrs Jerald Gomez & Associates on Dec 23, 1999, will be heard before judge Datuk Arifin Zakaria tomorrow.

Lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad, his law firm Messrs Sajali & Aziz, Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad, and Vest Hong Enterprise Sdn Bhd are also named as the defendants.

The couple, in their statement of claim, say Ismail approached them and agreed to buy their properties in Seberang Perai Selatan, Penang for RM7.5 million.

They say Ismail asked them to enter a sale and purchase agreement on July 30, 1999 and agreed to pay RM200,000 as deposit-RM150,000 to be paid upon execution of the agreement and the remaining RM50,000 one month after that.

They say Ismail assured them the full payment would be made within two months. The couple claims that on July 26, 1999, the bank approved a RM16 million loan to Vest Hong for the purchase of machinery and working capital.

They allege that Ismail and Aziz released the title deeds to the bank as security for the loan and that under the charge, they are liable to repay at least RM23,528,346.

They are seeking a declaration that the charge over their properties is null and void.

They also want a rescission of the sale and purchase agreement and an order for the title deeds to be returned to them.

In the alternative, they want Ismail to perform his part by paying RM7.3 million for the land.

Ismail, Aziz and his law firm, in their defence, deny liability or making any representations to the plaintiffs.

Ismail claims that he had informed the couple that he was purchasing the properties on behalf of Vest Hong.

The bank said it has no knowledge of the fraud and confirmed that the signature on the charged document belonged to the plaintiffs.

 Vest Hong contends that it purchased the properties from Ismail as the beneficial owner and that the transfer was done with the plaintiffs’ knowledge and consent.

 

THE SUN October 10 2001

Expert tells court of differences in couple’s signatures

KUALA LUMPUR, Tues: A handwriting expert told the High Court here today he found differences in several documents allegedly signed by an elderly couple.

Lim Yok Chaw, of the Chemistry Department, said the couple’s signatures in the charge documents and charge annexure were different from those in the sales and purchase agreement and specimen.

He said he had received the documents and specimen of the couple’s signatures from their lawyer, Messrs Jerald Gomez & Associates.

Lim was testifying in a civil suit brought by Ismail Mahmod, 75, and Sadiah Abdullah, 65, against five parties, including a law firm and a bank, for alleged breach of trust and misrepresentation.

Lim told judge Datuk Arifin Zakaria that Ismail’s signature was different in terms of the angularity of the signature, the connecting stroke between two alphabets, the formation of alphabets, the pen lift and underscore of the signature.

In Sadiah’s case, Lim said, the differences were in terms of alphabet design, pen pressure and penmanship.

The couple claims that the sale of their 4.05ha land, worth RM7.5m in 1999, to Ismail Husin has resulted in severe losses as they have yet to receive the balance sale price of the RM7.3 million.

They also claim that they are now responsible for a RM23.5 million mortgage on the land.

In the suit against Ismail Husin, lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad, law firm Messrs Sajali & Aziz, Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia and Vest Hong, the couple are seeking the return of the land or in the alternative, payment of the outstanding RM7.3 million.

Ahmad Badri Idrus, representing Ismail Husin, applied to cross-examine Lim on a later date.

He said the issue is technical and needs further study, and that the chemistry report has only been served on the defendants today.

Azlan Khamis, for Abdul Aziz and his law firm, asked for two more samples of the couple’s signatures for analysis.

Arifin granted their applications and set Nov 6 and 7 for the next hearing.

 

NST January 28, 2002

Pensioner: I trusted lawyer and so I signed documents

KUALA LUMPUR, Mon – A pensioner told the High Court today that he trusted a lawyer to handle a sale and purchase agreement to sell his land for RM7.5 million and signed many documents without asking what they were.

“I did not ask (lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad), I just signed as he had instructed,” said Ismail Mohamad, 75.

Questioned by counsel Azlan Kamis, for Abdul Aziz, Ismail Mohamad said the lawyer had told him that after an initial deposit of RM200,000 was paid to him (Ismail Mohamad), the balance of the purchase price would be settled in three months.

He said Abdul Aziz only told him to come to his office to sign the SPA (on July 30, 1999, at the legal firm of Sajali and Aziz, which is the third defendant in the suit).

When asked why he did not obtain advice or the services of another lawyer before signing the SPA, Ismail Mohamad said, “Because I trusted Abdul Aziz.”

He said Abdul Aziz did not force him to sign but told him to sign many documents.

Ismail Mohamad said he knew the transaction was important but he did not understand its contents.

“I did not suspect anything during that time.

He said he banked in a cheque for RM150.000 given to him by Abdul Aziz (part of the deposit) at Tabung Haji when he returned to Penang a few days after signing the SPA.

Ismail Mohamad was testifying in a suit brought by him and his wife Sadiah Abdullah, 64, against Ismail Husin (the purchaser ), Abdul Aziz, the legal firm, Bank Kerjasama Raykat Malaysia Berhad and Vest Hong Enterprise Sdn Bhd for alleged misrepresentation, negligence, fraud and breach of trust over the SPA for his 10 acre(4-5ha) land in Seberang Prai Selatan, Penang.

In their statement of claim dated Dec 23, 1999, they alleged that Ismail Husin and Abdul Aziz never told them that, among others, the bank had approved a RM16 million loan facility to Vest Hong Enterprise to finance the purchase of machinery.

They claimed that the loan was not financing the purchase of the land and that the title deed had been released to the bank as security for the loan facility.

The couple wants, among others, a declaration, a rescission of the SPA and an order that the title deed be returned free from encumbrances.

In their defence Ismail Husin, Abdul Aziz, the legal firm, and the bank denied that they had attempted to cheat or defraud the couple.

Vest Hong Enterprise claimed that the couple had consented to execute a charge on the property in favor of the bank in order to make certain payments.

Counsel Jerald Gomez is representing the couple.

Hearing continues before judge Datuk Arifin Zakaria.

 

NST August 5, 2003

Lawyer panicked, says witness

KUALA LUMPUR, Mon – A son-in-law of an elderly couple, who claimed to have been misrepresented by a lawyer in a RM7.5 million land sale, said the lawyer panicked when he confronted him three months after the sale and purchase agreement was signed.

Azlan Hassan, 42, said he, together with a woman lawyer by the name of Kim, confronted lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad at his office in late October 1999 after he (Azlan) went to Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad (Bank Rakyat) to find out why the bank had not released a loan.

The loan was to Ismail Husin, who had purchased a 10acre (4.5ha) land belonging to Azlan’s in-laws, Ismail Mohmad, 76, and claimed they had yet to receive the full payment.

(The SPA was signed on July 30, 1999.)

Cross examined by counsel Azlan Khamis, representing Aziz and the legal firm Sajali & Aziz, Azlan Hassan said during the meeting, Aziz had shown him and Kim several documents such as a mortgage form and a loan offer letter, which he had never seen before.

Azlan, who was asked by his in-laws to pursue the payment, said Aziz “looked panicky when Miss Kim posed so many questions to him”.

Asked by the couple’s counsel, Jerald Gomez, during re-examination to elaborate, Azlan said, “His spectacles and the pen he was holding fell when he showed me the documents which I had never seen before.”

Azlan was testifying in a suit brought by his in-laws against Ismail Husin, Aziz, the legal firm, Bank Rakyat and Vest Hong Enterprise Sdn Bhd for alleged misrepresentation, negligence, fraud and breach of trust over the SPA for the land in Seberang Prai Selatan, Penang.

In their statement of claim dated Dec 23, 1999, they alleged that Ismail Husin and Aziz never told them that, among others, the bank had approved a RM16 million loan facility to Vest Hong Enterprise to finance the purchase of machinery.

The couple want, among others, a declaration, a rescission of the sale and purchase agreement and an order that the title deed be returned free from encumbrances.

In their defence, Ismail Husin, Aziz, the legal firm, and the bank denied that they had attempted to cheat or defraud the couple. Vest Hong Enterprise claimed that the couple had consented to execute a charge on the property in favour of the bank in order to make certain payments.

Hearing continues on Wednesday.

 

NST October 9, 2003

Broker: I wanted to find buyer for 4.5ha land

KUALA LUMPUR, Wed. – A 51-year-old self-employed man who purchased three parcels of land in Penang for RM7.5 million about four years ago told the High Court today that he had no intention of buying the land when he first met the owners in 1996.

“I wanted to find a buyer for the land and did not discuss buying the land for myself,” said Ismail Hussin, who describes himself as a land broker with no fixed income.

He agreed with counsel Mohd Fuad Husami, who represented Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia, that with his unreliable income he could not afford to buy the land or obtain financing to purchase it.

Fuad was cross-examining Ismail Hussin at the hearing of a suit by Ismail Mohamad and wife, Saadiah Abdullah, for alleged misrepresentation, negligence and breach of trust over the sale and purchase agreement for the land covering 4.5ha in Seberang Prai Selatan, Penang.

The couple named Ismail Hussin, lawyer Abdul Aziz Ahmad, Messrs Sajali and Aziz, Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad and Vest Hong Enterprise Sdn Bhd as defendants.

During cross-examination by counsel Azlan Kamis, who represented Abdul Aziz and the legal firm, Ismail Hussin said he purchased the land from the couple to help his friend, Zulkifli Jalaluddin, obtain a bank loan for Vest Hong from Bank Rakyat.

He also said before signing the SPA for the land with Ismail Mohamad and Saadiah, he did not tell them that he was re-selling the land at the higher price to Vest Hong.

In their statement of claim, the couple alleged that Ismail Hussin and Abdul Aziz never told them that, among others, the bank had approved a RM16 million loan facility to Vest Hong to finance the purchase of machinery.

They claimed the title deeds had been released to the bank as security for the loan facility.

The couple wants, among others, a rescission of the SPA and an order that the title deeds be return free from encumbrances.

Hearing continues before judge Datuk Arifin Zakaria.

 

Reports

24 Mar 2007 26 Jun 2005 9 Oct 2003

Judgements

23 Mar 2007 Court of Appeal 25 Jun 2005 High Court

Reports

Utusan & The Star 5 Nov 2009 – RM1.1 Million for Accident Victim

Judgements

Court of Appeal 4 Nov 2009 High Court 8 Mar 2007

 

Setelah Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan plaintif

Ibu lumpuh dapat RM1.1  juta

PUTRAJAYA 4 Nov. – Seorang ibu yang lumpuh separuh tubuhnya akibat kemalangan jalan raya 11 tahun lalu mendapat ganti rugi hampir RM1.1 juta setelah Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuannya.

Panel tiga hakim diketuai oleh Datuk Tengku Baharuddin Shah Tengku Mahmud turut memutuskan jumlah ganti rugi itu termasuk kos RM30,000 dibayar kepada plaintif, Nauren Abd. Manaf, 54.

Beliau yang bersidang bersama Hakim Datuk Sulong Matjeraie dan Hakim Datuk S. Selventhiranathan turut memutuskan sebulat suara agar jumlah itu dibayar atas kadar faedah lapan peratus setahun.

Bekas ahli perniagaan itu menyaman Chew Ming Thai ekoran kemalangan yang berlaku di Kilometer 271 Lebuhraya Kuala Lumpur-Seremban pada 23 Ogos 1998 di antara lori yang dipandu oleh suaminya dengan kereta yang dipandu oleh lelaki itu.

Mahkamah Sesyen Seremban pada 5 November 2004 memberinya ganti rugi am dan ganti rugi khas hampir RM1.5 juta setelah memutuskan Ming Thai selaku defendan bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya terhadap kecacatan dari leher ke bawah yang dialami suri rumah berkenaan.

Nauren yang tidak berpuas hati dengan jumlah itu merayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi Seremban pada 8 Mac 2006. Bagaimanapun, beberapa ganti rugi dikurangkan menyebabkan dia merayu ke Mahkamah Rayuan.

Hari ini, panel berkenaan membenarkan rayuannya dengan memberi ganti rugi bagi kos penjagaan masa depan (RM302,400), kos kain lampin (RM93,600), kos pembedahan masa depan (RM200,000), ganti rugi am akibat lumpuh (RM400,000) dan kehilangan nikmat hidup (RM100,000).

Isnin lalu, peguam Gerald Gomez ketika berhujah mewakili Nauren menyatakan, akibat kemalangan itu, anak guamnya mengalami kesengsaraan hidup kerana laporan perubatan menyatakan dia tidak berpeluang langsung untuk sembuh kerana kecacatan itu akan merebak ke anggota lain.

Menurut peguam bela, lumpuh yang dideritai mangsa bukan kecacatan biasa kerana ia menyebabkan dia mengalami trauma seumur hidup dan memerlukan bantuan orang lain untuk menguruskan diri termasuk membersihkan najis.

Ketika menggambarkan keperitan hidup plaintif, Gerald memetik penghakiman Mahkamah Sesyen yang menyatakan:

”Orang lain menunggu untuk pulih sedangkan plaintif menunggu ajal sepanjang hidupnya.”

Sementara itu, peguam Shanta Mohan yang mewakili Ming Thai berhujah, tiada laporan perubatan yang mengesahkan plaintif lumpuh keseluruhan badannya.

Beliau berhujah, ganti rugi am akibat lumpuh yang diberikan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen ialah RM200,000 dan jumlah itu merupakan yang tertinggi diperuntukkan oleh undang-undang bagi mangsa kemalangan yang lumpuh separuh tubuh.

 

THE STAR, 5 NOVEMBER 2009

RM1.1mil for accident victim

Court awards damages to mother of two paralysed after collision

PUTRAJAYA: A mother, who was paralysed after a lorry driven by her husband collided with a car 11 years ago, was awarded about RM1.1mil in damages by the Court of Appeal.

Justices Tengku Datuk Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud, Datuk Sulong Matjeraie and Datuk T. Selventhir-anathan allowed yesterday the ap-peal by Nauren Abdul Manaf, 54, with costs and interest.

She also received RM302,400 for nursing care, RM93,600 for diapers, RM200,000 for future care, general damages of RM400,000 for paralysis suffered, RM100,000 for loss of amenities and RM30,000 in costs.

The quorum, however, maintained the High Court’s decision not to award costs to Nauren over the loss of income for her husband.

The mother of two had brought her case to the Court of Appeal after the Seremban High Court on March 8, 2006 reduced some of the damages quantum awarded by the Sessions Court following an appeal by the defendant, Chew Ming Thai.

On Nov 5, 2004, the Seremban Sessions Court held Chew fully responsible for the accident and ordered him to pay RM1,478,672.94 in general and special damages.

The lorry driven by Nauren’s husband collided with a car driven by Chew at KM271 of the North-South Expressway near Serem­ban on Aug 23, 1998.

Nauren’s counsel Jerald Gomez submitted that as a result of the accident, Nauren developed an illness called post-traumatic dystrophy, also known as complex regional pain syndrome, causing her daily pain.

He said a specialist, Dr Edmond Ong, had testified that Nauren would require full-time care because she might eventually be bedridden.

Chew’s counsel Shanta Mohan urged the court to maintain the quantum of RM200,000 awarded by the High Court for general damages on the ground that the amount was the highest award given by law.

He added that there was no medical evidence to indicate Nauren was totally paralysed. — Bernama

 

Reports

Utusan & The Star 5 Nov 2009 – RM1.1 Million for Accident Victim

Judgements

Court of Appeal 4 Nov 2009 High Court 8 Mar 2007

Mingguan Malaysia 22 December 2013 The Star Online 20 December 2013 Bernama 27 December 2013

 

Mingguan Malaysia 22 Disember 2013

Nurul AF2 dan suami menang kes saman fitnah

TV3 diarah bayar RM320,000

KUALA LUMPUR 21 Diş. – Mahkamah Tinggi, di sini memerintahkan Sistem Televisyen Malaysia Bhd. (TV3) membayar ganti rugi RM320,OOO kepada bekas peIajar Akademi Fantasia musim kedua (AF2), Nurul dan suaminya, berhubung tuntutan menyiarkan gambaran visual bersifat fitnah dalam rancangan Melodi, dua tahun lalu.

Hakim Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin membuat keputusan itu hari ini dengan kehadiran peguam David Dev Peter yang mewakili pasangan Nurul atau nama sebenarnya, Nurullah Zawawi, 31, dan Mohd. Munzil Muhamad, 30, manakala TV3 diwakili dua peguam, R. Divya Nair dan Wee Jason.

Turut hadir di galeri awam untuk mendengar keputusan itu adalah Mohd. Munzil dan keluarganya namun Nurul tidak kelihatan.

Dalam penghakiman Hakim Nor Bee menetapkan RM250,000 sebagai ganti rugi manakala selebihnya sebagai kos perundangan.

Pasangan itu selaku pihak plaintiff memfailkan pernyataan tuntutan pada 5 September 2011 dengan mendakwa saluran televisyen itu antara pukul 12.30  tengahhari dan 1.30 petang, 26 Jun tahun sama menyiarkan fitnah mengenai status perkahwinan serta hal ehwal peribadi mereka melalui rancangan Melodi.

Selain TV3, mereka menamakan penerbit Melodi Azman Abd. Ghafar, wartawan hiburan, Michelle Wee Lili, syarikat ALT Media Sdn. Bhd. dan abang kandung Nurul, Bustamam Zawawi sebagai defendan pertama hingga ketujuh.

Nurul dan Mohd. Munzil menyatakan, gambaran visual yang disiarkan membawa maksud antaranya, perkahwinan mereka tidak sah di sisi undang-undang dan agama selain menipu ibu bapa serta keluarga dan jahil dalam soal agama.

Hakim Noor Bee membuat keputusan setelah mengupas semua insiden yang berlaku dalam kes saman itü selain mendapati pembelaan pihak defendan tidak dapat dibuktikan.

Tambahan pula menurut beliau, Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Hulu Langat telah mengesahkan pernikahan mereka mengikut hükum syarak.

Selain itu, ujar Hakim Noor Bee, Nurul telah cuba mendekati bapa kandungnya tetapi usaha itü tidak berjaya.

Dalam saman tersebut, pasangan itu menyatakan akibat penyiaran Visual oleh pihak defendan, reputasi mereka telah dianggap sebagai rendah.

Sehubungan itü pasangan terbabit menuntut ganti rugi teruk, ganti teladan selain injunksi agar tidak mengulangi fitnah tersebut.

Mohd. Munzil sebelum ini seorang pensyarah di sebuah universiti tempatan kini sedang melanjutkan pengajian ke peringkat doktor falsafah (PhD) di sebuah universiti luar negara.

Beliau juga sebelum itü pernah bertugas sebagai Timbalan Pendakwa Raya di Jabatan Peguam Negara.

 

The Star Online 20 December 2013

Former Akademi Fantasia star Nurul wins suit against TV3

KUALA LUMPUR: TV3 and four others have been ordered to pay damages totalling RM250,000 to former Akademi Fantasia Season 2 star Nurullah Zawawi and her husband in a defamation suit over a report on their marriage status two years ago.

In allowing the suit filed by Nurullah and husband, Mohd Munzil Muhamad, High Court Judge Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin also ordered the five defendants to pay costs of RM70,000 to the couple.

Besides TV3, the four defendants named in the suit were producer of the Melodi programme, Azman Abd Ghafar; journalist Michelle Wee Lili; Alt Media Sdn Bhd and Bustamam Zawawi, who is Nurul’s brother.

Nurul and her husband filed the suit on Sept 5, 2011 after the television station, in its Melodi programme on June 26, 2011, issued a statement on their marriage and a visual referring to them, which they claimed were defamatory.
The couple claimed that the visual shown during the programme gave an impression that their marriage was not valid and that they had no respect for their parents.

Besides general, aggravated and exemplary damages, the couple, represented by lawyer David Dev Peter, also sought an injunction, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

The judge also said that the marriage between Nurul and Mohd Munzil was valid as it was confirmed by the Hulu Langat Syariah Court. – Bernama

 

Bernama 27 December 2013

Former Akademi Fantasia star Nurul Wins Suit Against TV3

KUALA LUMPUR Dec 20 (Bernama) – The High Court here Friday ordered TV3 and four others to pay damages, totalling RM250,000, to former Akademi Fantasia Season 2 star Nurullah Zawawi and her husband in a defamation suit over a report by ‘Melodi’, an entertainment programme aired by the television station, on their marriage status two years ago.

In allowing the suit filed by Nurullah and husband, Mohd Munzil Muhamad, Judge Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin also ordered the five defendants to pay costs of RM70,000 to the couple.

Besides TV3, the four defendants named in the suit were producer of the Melodi programme, Azman Abd Ghafar; journalist Michelle Wee Lili; Alt Media Sdn Bhd and Bustamam Zawawi, who is Nurul’s brother.

Nurul and her husband filed the suit on Sept 5, 2011 after the television station, in its Melodi programme on June 26, 2011, issued a statement on their marriage and a visual referring to them, which they claimed were defamatory.
The couple claimed that the visual shown during the programme gave an impression that their marriage was not valid and that they had no respect for their parents.

Besides general, aggravated and exemplary damages, the couple, represented by lawyer David Dev Peter, also sought an injunction, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

Nor Bee, in her decision, said that the marriage between Nurul and Mohd Munzil was valid as it was confirmed by the Hulu Langat Syariah Court.- Bernama

 

Mingguan Malaysia 22 December 2013 The Star Online 20 December 2013 Bernama 27 December 2013