Agrobest (M) Sdn. Bhd. & Ors v Rosli A/L Jendut & Ors

Appellant(s):

• Agrobest (M) Sdn. Bhd
• Mudzafar Bin Abu Samah
• Khong Chung Chong

Respondent(s):

• Rosli A/L Jendut
• Atan Bin Baro
• Melah Binti Hamid
• Awang Bin Bako
• Esah A/P Wir
• Kasim Bin Awang
• Majib Bin Kasim

• YA Dato' Sri Mariana binti Haji Yahya
• YA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The respondents, who are Orang Asli, sued the appellants for alleged trespass and destruction of an ancestral burial site located on land leased to the first appellant for prawn farming.
• The respondents had relocated from the area in 1999 under instructions from the Department of Indigenous People Development (JAKOA), but claimed to visit the burial site annually for remembrance rituals.
• The appellants, after attempting to communicate with the native community and relevant authorities regarding the relocation of the graves, proceeded with excavation work at the site.

• Whether the respondents possessed the requisite locus standi to initiate the action, particularly as a personal capacity suit, and whether they successfully proved their lineage to the deceased buried at the site.
• Whether the appellants committed trespass on the subject land, given that the first appellant lawfully possessed the land through a lease agreement and the respondents had vacated the area years prior.
• Whether the appellants owed a duty of care to the respondents concerning the ancestral graves, considering the absence of a contractual relationship and the respondents' lack of possession.

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the High Court's decision, finding that the respondents lacked locus standi as they failed to produce sufficient evidence of their lineage to the deceased and the suit was not a representative action.
• The Court ruled that no trespass occurred, as the first appellant lawfully possessed the land through a lease, and the respondents, having vacated the area in 1999, no longer had actual possession of the burial site.
• The Court further held that the appellants owed no duty of care to the respondents, and the respondents' cross-appeal was struck out for being incompetent under Rule 8 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.