CASE SUMMARY FOR

SAGONG BIN TASI & ORS v KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR

& ORS
GROUP MEMBERS:

● MUHAMMAD EDRYAN SHAH PUTRA BIN HARUN (2022892368)

● MUHAMMAD NAQIB BIN MOHD SHAHRULAZMI (2022875314)
● NUR NABILAH BINTI ABDUL RAZAK (2022885352)
● NUR YASMIN NABIHAH BINTI AZIZ (2022857852)
● SHABIELLA AYUNIE BINTI SHARI (2022607142)

LECTURER’S NAME: MADAM AINUL MARDHIYYAH TAJUDIN

SAGONG BIN TASI & ORS v KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2002] 2 MLJ 591;
[2002] 2 AMR 2028; [2002] 2 CLJ 543

Summary of the case facts/background/ history of the case and its decision

Facts
- The plaintiffs were orang asli of the Temuan Tribe . The plaintiffs accused an acquisition
of land by the State Government (first defendant).
- The plaintiffs received written notices by the Land Administrator on 13 February 1996 to
vacate the land that they occupied within 14 days from the date of the notices.
- The plaintiffs were not very happy with the amount of compensation that they will
receive.
- The first defendant (State Government) claimed the land that the plaintiffs were
occupying was state land and refused to admit that all the plaintiffs didn't have any
interest in the land except for their crops, fruit trees and loss of their homes(building
structure)
- On 21 March 1996, the plaintiffs lodged a police report at the Dengkil police station
because the Sepang police asked to do so to collect their compensation cheques.
- Only the third and seventh plaintiffs collected the cheques.
- On 22 and 27 March 1996, the plaintiffs were forced out from the land. There was an
operation by the police with the help from the FRU in the presence of the officials from
Sepang District Office.
- All the fruit trees and crops on the land were destroyed.
- They also demolished the Balai Raya and Balai Adat of the Temuan community.
- All the plaintiffs received their cheques for limited compensation under protest without
prejudice to their legal rights.
- The plaintiffs claimed that the land had been occupied by the Temuans including the
plaintiffs for at least 210 years. For that matter the ancestral lands belonging to the
Temuans including the plaintiffs.
- For that matter they had proprietary interest of the orang asli in their customary and
ancestral lands as an interest in and to the land.
Decision of the court

- According to the oral histories of the Abroginal people societies relating to their
practices, custom and traditions and their relationship with the land, should be admitted
subject to the confines of the Evidence Act 1950 Section 32(d) and (e) (i) they must be of
public or general nature or of public or general interest; (ii) the statement must be made
by a competent person, that is one who 'would have been likely to be aware' of the
existence of the right, customs or matter; and (iii) the statement must be made before
the controversy as to the right, customs or matter had arisen
- The land had been occupied by the Temuans including the plaintiffs for at least 210
years and the occupation was continuous up to the time of the acquisition. The land was
customary and ancestral lands belong to the Temuans including the plaintiffs and
occupied by them for generations.
- The proprietary interest of the orang asli in their customary and ancestral lands was an
interest in and to the land. However, this conclusion was limited only to the area that
formed their settlement but not to the jungles at large where they used to roam to forage
for their livelihood in accordance with their tradition. As to the area of the settlement and
its size, it was a question of fact in each case. In this case as the land was clearly within
their settlement, the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in it was an interest in and to the land.
- As the land was continuously occupied and maintained by the plaintiffs to the exclusion
of others in pursuance of their culture and inherited by them from generation to
generation in accordance with their customs, it fell within the ambit of 'land occupied
under customary right' within the meaning of the definition of s 2 of the Land Acquisition
Act 1960.
- For that matter, the plaintiffs must be compensate in accordance to Land Acquisition Act
- The first and fourth defendants owed fiduciary duties towards the plaintiffs, which had
been breached and therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled to be compensated for the
loss suffered which was the value of the land. However no order was made for the
breach of fiduciary duties since it was not specifically prayed for and to avoid duplicity in
view of the award of compensation made in accordance with the Limited Alteration
Applications
- The eviction of the plaintiffs from the land was unlawful because the 14 day notice given
was unreasonable and insufficient
- Trespass had been committed against the possession of the land by the plaintiffs. The
second and third defendants were liable for it
Legal Issues

● Whether the plaintiffs can receive compensation for ungazetted land.

● Whether the land habited by the plaintiffs are customary and ancestral lands.
● Whether the defendants committed an act of trespass.

Ratio decidendi

-Whether the plaintiffs can receive compensation for ungazetted land.

the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (“LAA 1960”) which gives the government the right to acquire
Orang Asli land for a public purpose with compensation. This is in reference to s 2, where
the word 'land' is defined to mean alienated land within the meaning of the state land law,
land occupied under customary right and land occupied in expectation of title

-Whether the land habited by the plaintiffs are customary and ancestral lands.
Based on the decision made by the court, the plaintiffs had continuously maintained the land to
the exclusion of others in accordance with their culture while living there, and had passed it from
one generation to the next in accordance with their customs, thus it fell within the definition of
"land occupied under customary right" as stated in the Land Acquisition Act of 1960.

-Whether the defendants committed an act of trespass.

In this case, both the second and third defendants were held to be accountable to the plaintiffs
for trespass. Moreover, the plaintiffs were the actual beneficial owners, and they had not
approved the construction of that highway.