Mayan ak Nayang v Jacy ak Tintang & Anor

Appellant(s): Mayan Ak Nayang

Respondent(s):

• Jacy Anak Tintang [Defending On Behalf Of Himself And/Or Behalf Of The Other Proprietors, Occupiers Holders And Claimants Of Native Customary Rights (Ncr) Land Located Within Kampung Merdang Gayam, Jalan Dato Mohd Musa, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak]
• Sup Anak Bawong [Defending On Behalf Of Himself And/Or Behalf Of The Other Proprietors, Occupiers Holders And Claimants Of Native Customary Rights (Ncr) Land Located Within Kampung Mangka, Jalan Dato Mohs Musa, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak]

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng
• YA Dato' Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin

• The appellant claimed exclusive Native Customary Rights (NCR) over a parcel of land by inheritance, while two intervener natives claimed competing collective NCR over the same land on behalf of their respective villages, and a non-native company was separately clearing the land for a housing development pending issuance of title by the State Government.
• Instead of responding to native customary land claims filed against him at the District Office, the appellant filed a High Court writ action against the company and the State Government for trespass and damages, prompting the intervener natives to be joined as defendants.
• The High Court action was stayed pending Native Court proceedings; the District Native Court subsequently held a full trial and issued a split decision, which both the appellant and intervener natives appealed to the Resident's Native Court, where it remains pending.
• The defendants then applied to summarily dismiss the High Court suit on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Native Courts and that the appellant had not exhausted his statutory remedies.

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the trespass claim given that one defendant was a non-native company, notwithstanding that the underlying dispute concerned NCR land.
• Whether the 2020 decision to stay (rather than strike out) the High Court action gave rise to res judicata, barring the High Court from later dismissing the action on jurisdictional grounds.
• Whether the appellant was required to exhaust the statutory appellate hierarchy under the Native Courts Ordinance 1992 before maintaining the civil suit, and whether summary disposal under Order 14A/Order 18 rule 19 was appropriate in the circumstances.

• The Court of Appeal held that under section 5(3)(a) of the Native Courts Ordinance 1992, disputes over NCR land must be heard in the first instance by the Native Courts, and this statutory forum cannot be bypassed simply by joining a non-native developer as a defendant, since the trespass claim was entirely contingent on first establishing NCR.
• The Court held that the appellant's civil suit was premature as he had not exhausted the complete statutory dispute resolution hierarchy (District Native Court, Resident's Native Court, Native Court of Appeal) and continuing the suit would risk multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.
• The Court rejected the res judicata argument, holding that the 2020 interlocutory stay order lacked finality and did not bind the High Court judge, and affirmed that summary dismissal was appropriate since the core undisputed facts (submission to Native Courts, concluded trial, pending appeals) rendered a full trial unnecessary; both appeals were dismissed with costs.