Su'ot Tebari @ Sali Tebari & Ors v Superintendent of Land and Survey, Limbang Division & Ors

Appellant(s): Su’Ot Tebari @ Sali Tebari [Suing On Behalf Of Himself And 3 Of His Siblings]

Respondent(s):

• Superintendent Of Land & Survey, Limbang Division
• State Government Of Sarawak
• Land Custody & Development Authority

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant, suing on behalf of himself and three siblings, claimed Native Customary Rights (NCR) over four plots of land in Sarawak, asserting continuous occupation and cultivation by his family since before the Japanese Occupation in 1941.
• One of the disputed plots, Lot 349, had been alienated to the third respondent (Land Custody and Development Authority) under a lease, which the appellant contended was unlawful due to unextinguished NCR.
• The High Court declared that the appellant had acquired NCR over the lands but declined to grant other reliefs such as title issuance or declaring the third respondent's title unlawful, leading to appeals from both the appellant and the respondents.

• Whether the appellant had successfully established the existence of Native Customary Rights over the disputed lands based on continuous cultivation and occupation prior to 1 January 1958.
• Whether the High Court's finding of NCR was supported by credible evidence, particularly in light of contradictory aerial photographic evidence and the appellant's inconsistent testimony.
• Whether the appellant's claim was time-barred by the Mengkalap Settlement Exercise and subsequent Settlement Orders, and if the alienated title of the third respondent to Lot 349 was indefeasible against any pre-existing NCR.

• The Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to establish NCR over the disputed lands, as his oral history was directly contradicted by aerial photographs from 1948 and 1958 showing the majority of the land as primary forest.
• The Court deemed the appellant's credibility questionable due to inconsistencies in his testimony, particularly regarding his knowledge and participation in the Mengkalap Settlement Exercise where he had successfully claimed other lands.
• The Court held that the appellant's claim was time-barred as he did not appeal the Settlement Orders despite being aware of the settlement exercise, and affirmed that the alienated title of the third respondent to Lot 349 was indefeasible, limiting any potential remedy to damages against the Government rather than rectification of the land register.