LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SU’OT TEBARI @ SALI TEBARI [SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 3 OF HIS SIBLINGS]

LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SU’OT TEBARI @ SALI TEBARI [SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 3 OF HIS SIBLINGS]

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the disputed lots were cultivated and in continuous occupation prior to 1.1.1958; contemporaneous aerial photographs (1948,1958) materially contradicted oral history and showed majority of alleged areas remained primary forest; Map M was admissible only for identification and lacked probative weight absent proper ground correlation or qualified mapper; settlement procedure evidence established Settlement Orders and eventual alienation/lease; accordingly High Court finding of NCR was unsupported and set aside; LCDA's title to alienated land is indefeasible and plaintiff's remedy (if any) would be damages; plaintiff's appeal...

Citation
Q-01(NCvC)(W)-672-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (representative Action): Su'ot Tebari @ Sali Tebari; Defendant / 1st Respondent (also Appellant in Cross Appeal): Superintendent of Land and Survey, Limbang Division; Defendant / 2nd Respondent (also Appellant in Cross Appeal): State Government of Sarawak; Defendant / 3rd Respondent (appellant in Cross Appeal): Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA)
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Case Number
Q-01(NCvC)(W)-672-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court (judgment Delivered by Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11/2021 (plaintiff) dismissed; Appeals Q-01(NCVC)(W)-671-11/2021 (Government) and Q-01(NCVC)(W)-672-11/2021 (LCDA) allowed
Legal Topics
Native Customary Rights (ncr), Extinguishment of Rights, Indefeasibility of Title, Settlement Orders and Procedure, Limitation, Admissibility and Weight of Aerial Photographic Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Property Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Native Customary Rights (ncr) Extinguishment of Rights Indefeasibility of Title Settlement Orders and Procedure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Su'ot Tebari @ Sali Tebari

Appellant / Plaintiff (representative Action)

Superintendent of Land and Survey, Limbang Division

Defendant / 1st Respondent (also Appellant in Cross Appeal)

State Government of Sarawak

Defendant / 2nd Respondent (also Appellant in Cross Appeal)

Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA)

Defendant / 3rd Respondent (appellant in Cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court (judgment Delivered by Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff and siblings acquired native customary rights (NCR) over Field Lots 349, 682, 702 and 722
  2. 2 Whether any extinguishment of NCR occurred prior to alienation/issuance of lease
  3. 3 Whether issuance of title/lease was ultra vires the Sarawak Land Code

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that the disputed lots were cultivated and in continuous occupation prior to 1.1.1958; contemporaneous aerial photographs (1948,1958) materially contradicted oral history and showed majority of alleged areas remained primary forest; Map M was admissible only for identification and lacked probative weight absent proper ground correlation or qualified mapper; settlement procedure evidence established Settlement Orders and eventual alienation/lease; accordingly High Court finding of NCR was unsupported and set aside; LCDA's title to alienated land is indefeasible and plaintiff's remedy (if any) would be damages; plaintiff's appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal Q-01(NCVC)(W)-654-11/2021 (plaintiff) dismissed; Appeals Q-01(NCVC)(W)-671-11/2021 (Government) and Q-01(NCVC)(W)-672-11/2021 (LCDA) allowed

Orders

  • Dismissed Appeal 654 with no order as to costs
  • Allowed Appeal 671 with costs of RM30000 here and below