NOTIS...Hassnar menunjukkan notis di ladangnya yang telah dicerobohi Jaini (kiri)
RAMPAS....Sebahagian peralatan ladang yang dirampas polis yang menangkap pekerja Hassnar atas tuduhan menyertai Perhimpunan Haram.
MANTAN Ketua Polis Daerah Sandakan, OKK Hassnar M.P Ebrahim telah memfailkan saman terhadap Ketua Polis Daerah Kinabatangan, DSP Jaini Abdul Kadir dan 49 yang lain kerana telah mendatangkan kerugian dan menyalahguna kuasa polis sehingga memudaratkan perniagaannya.
"Ini untuk pengajaran kepada Polis yang rakus dan salahguna kuasa. Jangan ingat rakyat takut kepada Polis yang berselindung di sebalik Uniform," ujar Hassnar yang memfailkan Saman di Mahkamah Tinggi Sandakan pada jam 9.29 pagi tadi, Jumaat, 30 Januari 2009.
Menurut Hassnar, PDRM harus diajar kerana telah menyalahguna uniform mereka untuk mendatangkan kecederaan fizikal dan mental kepada rakyat terutamanya Anak Negeri Sabah yang terpaksa berhadapan dengan kekejaman polis untuk mempertahankan tanah tumpah darah mereka.
"Jika polis boleh diupah samseng, bolehkah kita berdiam diri?," ujar Hassnar menegaskan akan mengheret semua polis yang telah dikerah menyerang ladangnya dan memfitnah serta menangkap 16 pekerjanya dengan tuduhan palsu dan menyebabkan beliau rugi berjuta ringgit dalam serangan pada waktu subuh di ladang yang bergeran.
Memandangkan beliau telah memfailkan saman, maka Hassnar enggan mengulas lanjut dan meminta rakyat menilai dakwaan yang dimuatkan di dalam samannya.
RESIT....Resit bayaran saman yang difailkan Hassnar.
SURAT...Surat ini membuktikan saman telah difailkan terhadap Jaini dan 49 yang lain.
TEKS PENUH SAMAN HASSNAR MP EBRAHIM
MALAYSIA
IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH & SARAWAK AT SANDAKAN
SUIT NO S ( )OF 2009
BETWEEN
Hassnar @ Asainar B Hj MP Ebrahim -PLAINTIFF
AND
DSP Jaini Abdul Kadir -1ST DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the Royal
Malaysian Police)
Datuk Noor Rashid Ibrahim -2ND DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the Royal
Malaysian Police)
C/I Sahak B Ismail -3RD DEFENDANT(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
C/I Othman Baharum -4TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
C/I Salam B Aiyob -5TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the Royal
Malaysian Police)
Insp Helmy B Hussein -6TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Insp. Syamsuri B Hamat -7TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Sargent Ismail -8TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -9THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -10THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -11THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysia Police)
Unknown Person -12THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -13THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -14THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -15THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -16THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -17THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -18THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -19THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -20THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -21ST DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -22ND DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -23RD DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -24TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -25THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -26THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -27TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -28TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -29TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -30THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -31ST DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -32ND DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -33RD DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police Force)
Unknown Person -34TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -35TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -36THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -37TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -38TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police Force)
Unknown Person -39TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -40THDEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -41ST DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -42ND DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -43RD DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -44TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -45TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -46TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -47TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Unknown Person -48TH DEFENDANT
(Personally and as an officer of the
Royal Malaysian Police)
Inspector General of Police -49TH DEFENDANT
Government of Malaysia -50TH DEFENDANT
YANG AMAT ARIF TAN SRI DATUK SERI PANGLIMA RICHARD MALANJUM, P.S.M., S.P.S.K., S.S.A.P., S.I.M.P., S.P.D.K., P.G.D.K., THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK IN THE NAME AND ON BEHALF OF DULI YANG MAHA MULIA SERI PEDUKA BAGINDA YANG DI PERTUAN AGONG.
To:
1.DSP Jaini Abdul Kadir,
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan
Sabah
2.Datuk Noor Rashid Ibrahim,
Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Sabah,
Kepayan, Kota Kinabalu
3.C/I Sahak B Ismail,
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan, Sabah
4.C/I Othman Baharum
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan
Sabah
5. C/I Salam B Ayob,
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90100 Beluran, Sabah
6.Insp Helmy B Hussein,
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan, Sabah
7.Insp Syamsuri B Hamat
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan,Sabah
8.Sargent Ismail
Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah,
90200 Kota Kinabatangan,Sabah
9.UNKNOWN PERSON
10.UNKNOWN PERSON
11.UNKNOWN PERSON
12.UNKNOWN PERSON
13.UNKNOWN PERSON
14.UNKNOWN PERSON
15.UNKNOWN PERSON
16.UNKNOWN PERSON
17.UNKNOWN PERSON
18.UNKNOWN PERSON
19.UNKNOWN PERSON
20.UNKNOWN PERSON
21.UNKNOWN PERSON
22.UNKNOWN PERSON
23.UNKNOWN PERSON
24.UNKNOWN PERSON
25.UNKNOWN PERSON
26.UNKNOWN PERSON
27.UNKNOWN PERSON
28.UNKNOWN PERSON
29.UNKNOWN PERSON
30.UNKNOWN PERSON
31.UNKNOWN PERSON
32.UNKNOWN PERSON
33.UNKNOWN PERSON
34.UNKNOWN PERSON
35.UNKNOWN PERSON
36.UNKNOWN PERSON
37.UNKNOWN PERSON
38.UNKNOWN PERSON
39.UNKNOWN PERSON
40.UNKNOWN PERSON
41.UNKNOWN PERSON
42.UNKNOWN PERSON
43.UNKNOWN PERSON
44.UNKNOWN PERSON
45.UNKNOWN PERSON
46.UNKNOWN PERSON
47.UNKNOWN PERSON
48.UNKNOWN PERSON
49.Inspector General of Police,
Ibu Pejabat Polis, Bukit Aman,
Kuala Lumpur
50.Government of Malaysia
c/o Setiausaha Kerajaan Persekutuan,
Kompleks Kerajaan Persekutuan,
Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur
WE COMMAND you, that within 20 days after the service of this Writ on you, inclusive of the day of such service, you do cause an appearance to be entered for you in a cause at the suit of Hassnar B Hj MP Ebrahim @ Asainar of E 25, Lorong Pecky Valley 1,Taman Pecky Valley, Mile 2 Labuk Road, 90000 Sandakan, Sabah and take notice that in default of your so doing the plaintiffs may proceed therein to judgment and execution .
WITNESS , TUAN GABRIEL GUMIS HUMEN, REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT IN Sabah & Sarawak at Sandakan the day of 2009.
Hassnar @ Asainar B. Hj MP Ebrahim SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
The Plaintiff In Person HIGH COURT SANDAKAN
This writ may not be served more than twelve calendar months after the above date unless renewed by order of the court.
The Defendant (or Defendants) may appear hereto by entering an appearance (or appearances) either personally or by an advocate at the Registry of the High Court.
A Defendant appearing personally may, if he desires, enter his appearance by post , and the appropriate forms may be obtained by sending a postal Order for $10.00 with an addressed envelope to the Registrar, High Court at Sandakan, Sabah.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff is a native businessman involved in oil palm plantation and sale of fresh oil palm fruits in the districts of Sandakan, Labuk and Sugut and Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia and has his office address at Lot No.1, 1st Floor, Wisma Harbour View, Jalan Sandakan Lama, 90000 Sandakan.
2. From year 1976, the Plaintiff was also a community leader actively involved in activities of Parti Bersatu Rakyat Jelata Sabah (Berjaya Party), the then ruling party of the State Government of Sabah, and, until 1984, the Plaintiff has held various important post and or has been appointed as a member of the Sandakan Town Board, Director of Sabah Credit Corporation, Pemimpin Kemajuan Rakyat for the election constituency of Sandakan Bandar (N. 26) and Sekong (N. 28).
3. From 1981 to 1984 the Plaintiff also held the post of District Native Chief for the District of Sandakan.
4. Apart from his various appointments that deal directly with public the Plaintiff was also a director for several companies namely Lemin Plantation Sdn. Bhd. and Sucitani Sdn. Bhd., the company which successfully completed over RM30,000,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia thirty million) worth of project opening up and developing more than 12,000 acres of land belonging to Sabah Land Development Board situated at Sandau, Lahad Datu, Sabah.
5. Presently the Plaintiff together with his wife are the majority share holders and directors of Ladang Zaharah Maju Sdn. Bhd., a company that has successfully developed and planted about two thousand acres of land with oil palm.
6. The 1st Defendant is the Officer In Charge of the Royal Malaysian Police for the Kota Kinabatangan Police District, Sabah.
7. The 2nd Defendant is the Commissioner of Police for the State of Sabah, Malaysia.
8. The 3rd , 4th and the 7th Defendants are Chief Inspectors, the 5th and 8th Defendants are Inspector while the 6th Defendant is a sergeant. Except for the 7th Defendant who was formerly the district crime officer at the Beluran Police Station the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and the 8th Defendants are all attached to the Kota Kinabatangan Police Station.
9. The 9th to the 48th Defendants?full identity such as their full names, police ranks and addresses are unknown to the Plaintiff as of the date of filing of this summons but they are identifiable and their faces are easily recognizable from photographs taken by and in the Plaintiff抯 possession.
10. The Plaintiff had written to the 1st Defendant officially requesting for details of the 9th to the 48th Defendants?full name, Police Identification number, rank and address but the Plaintiff抯 request was rejected by the 1st Defendant and by letter from one En. Tan Boon Sing from the Police Headquarters at Kepayan, Kota Kinabalu. However, for purpose of convenience and easy identification, photographs of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th to the 48th Defendants are annexed herewith this Statement of Claim marked as 揂nnexure A?
11. The 49th Defendant is the Malaysian Inspector General of Police.
12. The 50th Defendant is the employer of the 1st to the 49th Defendants and vicariously responsible and/or liable for the action of the 1st to the 49th Defendants.
13. Sometime in January 2007 Gabongan Saga Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) offered the Plaintiff a contract to manage and maintain 46 parcels of land which had been leased by the registered land owner, Mr. Hiew Kon Fah, to the Company totaling approximately 617 acres situated at Latangon, in the district of Kinabatangan and held under the 46 Native Titles as listed hereinbelow:
No. Land Titles No. Land Title
13.1 NT 093036536 13.24 NT 093036769
13.2 NT 093036545 13.25 NT 093036778
13.3 NT 093036554 13.26 NT 093036787
13.4 NT 093036563 13.27 NT 093036796
13.5 NT 093036572 13.28 NT 093036803
13.6 NT 093036581 13.29 NT 093036812
13.7 NT 093036590 13.30 NT 093036821
13.8 NT 093036607 13.31 NT 093036830
13.9 NT 093036616 13.32 NT 093036849
13.10 NT 093036625 13.33 NT 093036858
13.11 NT 093036634 13.34 NT 093036867
13.12 NT 093036643 13.35 NT 093036876
13.13 NT 093036652 13.36 NT 093036885
13.14 NT 093036661 13.37 NT 093036894
13.15 NT 093036670 13.38 NT 093036901
13.16 NT 093036689 13.39 NT 093036910
13.17 NT 093036698 13.40 NT 093036929
13.18 NT 093036705 13.41 NT 093036938
13.19 NT 093036714 13.42 NT 093036947
13.20 NT 093036723 13.43 NT 093036956
13.21 NT 093036732 13.44 NT 093036965
13.22 NT 093036741 13.45 NT 093036974
13.23 NT 093036750 13.46 NT 093036983
(hereinafter referred to as the Said lands)
14. The company showed the Plaintiff copies of the 46 land titles for the said land to prove that Mr. Hiew Kon Fah has been registered as the owner and had leased the same to the Company. The Plaintiff met with the registered owner of the said lands who confirmed to the Plaintiff that he had leased the said lands to the company.
15. The Plaintiff agreed to accept the contract to maintain and managed the said land because, between the period of 1979 to 1985, the Plaintiff had applied for and or bought several parcels of land situated at Sg. Pin and Latangon in the district of Kinabatangan, Sabah.
16. While several parcels of land applied in Sg. Pin area were alienated under the names of companies, where the Plaintiff was a majority shareholder, the other pieces of land situated in the vicinity of Sg. Pin and Latangon as listed in the following were purchased by the Plaintiff from his relatives and individuals from the orang Sungai community who had applied for the same and whose application had been approved by the relevant authorities. These lands include:-
No. Applicant LA Numbers
16.1 SALAMAH BTE ZAILANI 76094017
16.2 MARIAM BTE PINGKOI 76094018
16.3 RUKRA @ MARIAH BINTI ASMAT 76094019
16.4 AMASUADA BINTI HASSAN 76094020
16.5 BAHARUN BIN BANSAAN 76094021
16.6 EJAH BINTI SANGGI 76094022
16.7 MAIMUNAH BTE BAHARUN 76094023
16.8 SABRANI BTE GUMOK 76094024
16.9 MD NOR BIN ZAMAN 76094025
16.10 ALIAH BTE PINGKOI 76094026
16.11 AMIMAH BTE MUALIP 76094027
16.12 ROHANI BTE SABRAN 76094028
16.13 AJIJAH BTE MIANG 76094029
16.14 WING BIN TAHA 76094030
16.15 ABDUL BIN MANJA 76094034
16.16 ALI OMAR BIN HASSAN 76094035
16.17 ARSAH BIN TAHA 76094036
16.18 ABDUL RAHIM BIN MATO 76094037
16.19 ABDUL RAHMAN BIN PINGKOI 76094038
16.20 MANSOR BIN MUHAMAD 76094039
16.21 AG SALLEH BIN MASBAT 76094040
16.22 APLEE BIN ABDUL RAHIM 76094041
16.23 DALKIAH BTE PANGKATAN 76094042
16.24 NORSIAH BTE MASBAT 76094043
16.25 SERIAH BTE ANGGARUN 76094044
16.26 KIMRANAH BTE JAPAL 76094045
(Hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff Lands)
17. The Plaintiff did not immediately enter and develop the Plaintiff lands as the Plaintiff had been occupied with the development of other parcels of lands owned by the Plaintiff and or the Plaintiff family situated in the districts of Sandakan, Labuk and Sugut.
18. As the location of the Plaintiff lands were only a few miles from the said land, the Plaintiff agreed to accept the contract from the Company. The terms of the contract, inter alia, stated that the Company would pay the Plaintiff as follows:
18.1. Harvesting of fruits RM30.00 per ton;
18.2. Loading of Fresh Fruit bunch on to the companys transport RM1/Ton;
18.3 Driver commission RM2.50/Ton
18.4 transporting fresh fruit bunch to nearest mill
(estimated about 50 kilometer from the said land) RM45.00 / Ton;
18.3. spraying of weed killer RM10.00/acre
(subject to total acreage and condition of planted area to be sprayed); and
18.4 application of compound fertilizers RM6.00/acre
(to be re negotiated subject to type of fertilizers, quantity, the number of
application and total acreage to be fertilized);
19. After execution of the relevant contract documents the Plaintiff was paid RM50,000.00 as initial deposit and mobilization fund. Immediately upon acceptance of the mobilization fund from the Company, on 26th day of May 2007 the Plaintiff, together with about 15 laborers, entered the said lands to ascertain the boundaries and commence clearing and related works to managed and maintain the same and also develop the Plaintiff抯 lands. The Plaintiff also identified a site in the said lands and started building his laborers?quarters thereat.
20. After ascertaining the boundaries of the said lands the Plaintiff discovered several unknown persons had trespassed the said lands.
21. At the time the Plaintiff took possession of the said lands about ten to fifteen unknown persons were at the said lands harvesting the oil palm fruit and loading them onto several lorries.
22. To ascertain their identities and authority the Plaintiff approached and inquired from those unknown persons their identities, their employer and their place of residence.
23. The Plaintiff was told by those unknown persons who were at the said lands harvesting and removing the oil palm fruits out from the said lands that they were from Indonesia. They also admitted to the Plaintiff they have no work permit or any travel documents but was engaged by an individual they addressed as a mandor, also an Indonesian, who was employed by a company.
24. Besides the illegal immigrants the Plaintiff also noticed that several lorries were entering freely in and out of the said lands removing stones and oil palm fruits either harvested from the said lands or harvested from other parcels of land unknown to the Plaintiff.
25. To protect his interest the Plaintiff stopped several of the said lorries, instructed the drivers to leave their vehicles at the location where they were stopped inside the said lands and politely requested the said lorry drivers to inform their employers to come and see the Plaintiff bringing along documents to prove their rights to enter and harvest the oil palm fruits from the said lands. The reason why the Plaintiff instructed those drivers to leave the lorries behind was to ensure the evidence that they had trespassed into the said lands is secured and to obtain details of those involved in trespassing the said lands. Registration number of some of the vehicle are as follows:
No. Lorry Registration No
25.1 SA 105 U
25.2 ST 5051 E
25.3 SA 4279 L
25.4 SS1862 H
25.5 SA 2716 K
26. Some of the trespassers and / or lorry drivers refused to cooperate and made attempts to remove their vehicles that had earlier been stopped inside the company抯 lands.
27. Sensing that the trespassers?intention to remove their lorries was for avoiding proof of their trespass and theft, the Plaintiff depleted the tires of several of the said lorries. The Plaintiff took photographs of the lorries with their depleted tyres to provide to the Police as proof of the trespass.
28. On the evening of the 26th day of May 2007, upon being informed by the Plaintiff of the incidence, Mr. Hiew Kon Fah, the registered land owner lodged a police report under Kinabatangan Police Report No 0926/07 at the Kinabatangan Police Station against the trespassers. The Plaintiff together with the said registered land owner of the said lands and director of the Company gave their statements to the investigating police officer at the Kinabatangan Police Station. They also provided the police with all the necessary documents to prove the ownership of the said lands. To date no criminal action had been taken against the trespassers by the Police either from the Kinabatangan Police Station, where the 1st Defendant was and still is the officer in charge or by the 2nd and or the 49th Defendants who are the Commissioner of Police for the State of Sabah and the Inspector General of Police.
29. Before leaving the said lands to lodge the Police report the Plaintiff discovered that the trespassers and the lorries that he had stopped inside the said lands were actually the laborers engaged by a company incorporated in Malaysia registered as Kwantas Land Development Sdn. Bhd. (Hereinafter referred to as Kwantas). The lorries that had trespassed the said land and ordered to stop by the Plaintiff also belongs to Kwantas.
30. Immediately after the incident as stated under paragraphs 19 to 29 hereinabove, a director of Kwantas identified as Puan Janet Kwan instructed several laborers to erect a gate at the entrance to the said lands and engaged between 25 to 30 armed illegal immigrants, to work as security guard, and stationed them at the gate with strict instruction not to allow the Plaintiff or his laborers to enter the said lands.
31. The gate, erected on a government road reserve and the only access to the said lands, and the employment of the armed illegal immigrants was to stop the Plaintiff and his laborers from entering the said lands thereby exposing Kwantas illegal action of trespassing the said lands and engaging illegal immigrants to work as harvesters.
32. Upon being informed of the erection of the gate the registered land owner of the said lands lodged a complaint to the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue of Kinabatangan (The ACLR) against the closure of the road leading to the said lands.
33. Acting on the complaint the ACLR conducted a land inquiry and, vide letter bearing reference PTDK : 600 ?27 / 2 dated 11th July 2007, the ACLR delivered his decision ordering Kwantas to immediately remove the illegal gate erected on the government road reserve. A copy of the decision of the ACLR had also been delivered to the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiff and the registered land owner but the 1st Defendants deliberately refused to acknowledge receipt and or take any action on the said order.
34. Further to the above, in an effort to solve the matter, the Plaintiff's advocate together with the registered land owner met and formally requested the 1st Defendant to take the necessary action but again the 1st Defendant deliberately refused to perform his duty.
35. When the 1st Defendant, as the officer in charge of the Kinabatangan Police Station, made no attempt to take action against the trespassers and to remove the said gate, on the 12th day of July 2007 the Plaintiff together with about 40 of his workers re-entered and took possession of the said lands.
36. Immediately upon taking possession of the said lands the Plaintiff dug several ditches at every entrance to the said lands to prevent any trespassers from further trespassing and or entering the said lands and removing the oil palm fruits.
37. On the next day, 13th day of July 2007 at about 06.30 am the 1st Defendant, the 3rd to the 48th Defendants together with about 150 to 200 police personnel, all fully armed with automatic weapons such as machine guns, M 16 equipped with grenade launcher, tear gas and other weapons for killing, illegally entered the said lands.
38. The 9th to the 48th Defendants are some of the personnel of the Royal Malaysian Police who were assembled by the 1st and 2nd Defendants from the Sandakan Police Station, Kota Kinabatangan Police Station, Beluran Police Station, Lahad Datu Police Station and from the Police Headquarters at Kepayan, Kota Kinabalu They were ordered to assist the 1st to the 8th Defendants in arresting, detaining, handcuffing, illegally detaining the Plaintiff's laborers and to assist the laborers engaged by Kwantas to trespass into and or to eject the registered land owner, the Plaintiff and his workers from the said land and to steal from the said land.
39. On the assumption that the Defendants had entered the said lands was to provide security and to ensure no untoward incident will take place the Plaintiff approached to greet the 1st Defendant.
40. However the 1st Defendant refused to acknowledge the Plaintiff's greeting and handshake. The 1st Defendant, in a rude and hostile manner asked the Plaintiff what he was doing on the said lands.
41. In response to the uncivilized attitude of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff told him that he and the other police personnel are trespassing on the said lands and politely requested the 1st Defendant to order all the police personnel out of the said lands.
42. Initially the 1st Defendant refused to heed the Plaintiff's request but when told by the Plaintiff that he had photo copies of the land titles in his possession, the 1st Defendant left the said lands after about 15 minutes. However, about 10.00 am on the same day, the 1st Defendant together with about 150 to 200 police personnel, assisted by the 3rd to the 48th Defendants, reentered the said lands and detained all the Plaintiff's laborers and forced all of them to squat in an area inside the said lands. Then, without any valid reasons, they arrested and handcuffed 15 of the Plaintiff's laborers and brought them to the Kinabatangan police station where they were illegally detained for more than 24 hours without producing them in court to get an order to remand.
43. While at the said lands the Defendants also seized and confiscated all the Plaintiff'a agriculture tools and harvesting equipments such as parangs, harvester (tombak), loading spikes including kitchen knives and can opener.
44. During this incident, the Defendants acted in a high handed, rough and uncivilized manner, constantly shouting and harassing the Plaintiff and his laborers clearly with the intention to antagonize and humiliate the Plaintiff and his laborers.
45. At the same time while the Plaintiff's laborers were being detained as described above, several police personnel, under the instruction of the 1st Defendant, escorted Kwantas?workers and heavy machinery such as backhoes and tractors to cover all the ditches at every entrance to the said lands which the Plaintiff had dug up earlier. After all the ditches had been covered up, lorries and workers engaged by Kwantas illegally reentered the said lands in the presence and under the assistance and protection of the Defendants and or armed police personnel. Kwantas?workers then wrongfully and illegally remove all the oil palm fruits that had been harvested the day before.
46. After confiscating all the Plaintiff's agricultural equipment, arresting the Plaintiff's laborers and leaving the Plaintiff with no cooking utensils, at about 05.30 pm in the evening on the same day, the Plaintiff saw two armed police personnel escorting two unknown Kwantas?laborers inside a pick up truck to check and inspect the Plaintiff's laborers lines.
47. Fearing for his safety and for the safety of his workers, at about 06.30 pm on the same day, the Plaintiff and a few of his remaining workers had no choice but to leave the said lands. Several other laborers were left behind because there was not enough vehicle to transport them out.
48. After the Plaintiff had left the said lands, at about 08.00 or 09.00 pm in the evening, about 100 unknown Kwantas workers came to the site where the Plaintiff had erected his laborers lines.
49. Upon entering the said lands a few of the Kwantas laborers, in a threatening manner, went around asking the Plaintiff's whereabout. The other Kwantas laborers destroyed the laborer lines built by the Plaintiff and wrongfully and illegally removed and stole all the Plaintiff's detained laborers personal belongings which includes bags, clothing, hand phones, watches, bed, blankets, towels, sarongs, cooking utensils, live chickens and even water tanks.
50. While the Plaintiff's laborers were being detained, and before they were produced before a magistrate, the Plaintiff made several attempts to meet up with the 8th Defendant to inform him that the Plaintiff has engaged several lawyers to represent the detained laborers.
51. The 8th Defendant deliberately refused to meet and talk to the Plaintiff and even instructed the other Police personnel on duty at the Balai Polis Kota Kinabatangan not to give to the Plaintiff his phone number thereby denying the Plaintiff the opportunity to give correct information to his lawyers who had been engaged to represent his detained laborers.
52. The Plaintiff lodged a Police report, vide Kinabatangan Police report No. 1319 / 2007, against the 1st Defendant and other defendants involved when the detention of his laborers exceeded more than 24 hours without them being produced before a magistrate.
53. To date the 2nd or the 49th Defendants has not taken any action on all the Plaintiff's police reports. The first under Kinabatangan Police Report No 1315 / 2007, lodged on the 13 day of July 2007 against the 1st Defendant for illegally arresting and detaining the Plaintiff's laborers and misusing their Police powers to seize the Plaintiff's agricultural tools and equipments from a registered property, and Plaintiff's second report, under Kinabatangan Police Report No 1315 / 2007, for illegally detaining the Plaintiff's laborers more than 24 hours without order from the Court which forced the 1st Defendant to bring the 15 detained laborers down from the Kota Kinabatangan Police Station to Sandakan before a Magistrate at the Sandakan Court.
54. At the Sandakan Magistrate's Court, upon hearing the objection from three lawyers engaged by the Plaintiff, the learned Magistrate refused to grant the Defendants application for remand and ordered the Plaintiff's 15 laborers to be released immediately.
55. The 15 workers were however only released more than 40 minutes after the order from the magistrate was delivered. Earlier the 8th Defendants deliberately refused to entertain the Plaintiff's plea and request for the immediate release of his laborers. Instead the 8th Defendants deliberately delayed the release of the 15 laborers by unnecessarily making several calls to his superior officers asking them for further advice.
56. The 15 detained laborers were only released after the Plaintiff threatened to lodge another Police report against the 8th Defendant for defying the order of the Magistrate and deliberately delaying the release of the 15 laborers.
57. The Defendants?actions as described above had caused the Plaintiff to suffer losses and damages.
58. PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE
58.1 The Plaintiff repeat paragraphs 1 to 57 hereinabove and state that the Defendants had committed the act of trespass against the said lands;
58.2 The Defendants?actions had caused the Plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental stress and anguish;
58.3 the Plaintiff was unable to locate the boundary stones as to identify the Plaintiff's lands which he had bought and situate in the vicinity;
58.4 The Defendants?actions had unlawfully prevented the Plaintiff from carrying out the contract with the Company to develop, to manage and to maintain the said lands.
59. PARTICULARS OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
59.1 Agriculture tools seized, still held and or lost due to the
action of the defendants until today (100 parangs, 20 harvester tools (tumbak), 20 loading spikes and 10 kitchen knives) RM 2,500.00
59.2 Loss of and destruction of labour lines RM 13,500.00
59.3 Water tank RM 520.00
59.4 Beds RM 1,500.00
59.5 Advance payment to each of the Plaintiff's
workers family before entering the said
lands (1 worker x RM300.00) RM 15,000.00
59.6 Loss of expected profit
earned from contract with the Company RM 450,000.00
59.7 Loss of expected profit from future earning
involving he Plaintiff's land totaling more
than 700 acres RM 5,000,000.00
60. By the actions complained of in paragraphs 28 to 56 of the above, the Defendants had meant and were understood to mean that :-
60.1 the Plaintiff had no rights to enter the said Lands;
60.2 the Plaintiff had committed acts which are criminal in nature;
60.3 the Plaintiff is a criminal;
60.4 the Plaintiff is dishonest and untrustworthy; and
60.5 the Plaintiff is a dishonest and untrustworthy employer.
61. The Defendant's uncivilized acts complained of above was witnessed by many people which later came to the knowledge of people in the business community and among the workers community in the districts of Sandakan, Kinabatangan and Labuk and Sugut and in consequence thereof the Plaintiff's character, credibility and reputation as a person, businessman and community leader had been seriously damaged and he had suffered considerable distress and embarrassment by being put into public ridicule, odium and contempt as a result of the 1st Defendant's actions.
62. Due to the Defendant's illegal acts the Plaintiff had subsequently faced difficulty in hiring workers for his business.
63. The Defendant's actions as stated in paragraphs 28 to 49 were also done with malice and mala fide.
64. PARTICULARS OF MALICE
64.1 The Plaintiff, the registered owner of the said lands and the lessee company director had given statements and furnished all the necessary documents to the Defendants to prove their rights over the said lands;
64.2 The Defendants had committed the actions described above despite knowing full well the rights of the Plaintiff over the said lands;
64.3 The Defendants had wrongfully assisted and illegally gave protection to Kwantas?workers in re-entering and taking over the possession of the said lands even though Kwantas clearly had no rights to enter and take possession of the said lands;
64.4 The Defendants, in assisting and giving protection to Kwantas and its directors, agents and employees had acted in contravention of their statutory powers;
64.5 The Defendants had arrested the Plaintiff's workers without any valid grounds.
65. WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants for the following:-
65.1. A declaration:
(a) that the 1st to the 49th Defendants had abused their Police power and their combined action in arresting, hand cuffing and detaining the Plaintiff's workers was an abuse of their Police powers and / or arbitrary, contravene the Police Act, the Penal Code, the Federal Constitution and the basic rule of law;
(b) that the 1st to the 8th Defendants together with the 9th to the 48th Defendants?actions, names and rank to be identified during trial, in detaining the Plaintiff's workers for more the 24 hours without producing them before a Magistrate, was illegal and was an abuse of their Police powers and/or arbitrary, contravene the Police Act, the Penal Code, the Constitution and the basic rule of law;
(c) that the 1st Defendant's and or his representatives?action applying for a remand order to detain the Plaintiff's workers for 14 days was an abuse of their Powers and or contrary to the Subordinate Court Act and or process of the Magistrate's Court;
(d) the allegation against the Plaintiff's workers to support for the remand order were malicious and / or a fabrication by the 1st , 2nd and 8th Defendants calculated to destroy the Plaintiff's reputation as a planter and a businessman and or calculated to deny the Plaintiff the opportunity expanding his business venture in future;
(e) the collective action by the 1st to the 49th Defendants to detain the Plaintiff's workers was intended to deny and / or stop the Plaintiff from exposing the unlawful and / or criminal acts or omission by personnel of the Royal Malaysian Police in apprehending criminals who had utilized false documents to wrongfully deprive the natives of Sabah of their property and ancestral native customary right and / or to illegally and forcefully acquiring their land and / or evicting the natives from their land;
(f) that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants, whose combined action to arrest and detain the Plaintiff's workers on grounds fabricated personally by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants calculated to humiliate the Plaintiff and the Defendants, be personally held liable to compensate the Plaintiff;
65.2. Damages for trespass;
65.3. Special damages as stated above;
65.4 an order for the 1st, 2nd and the 49th Defendants to issue a public apology to the Plaintiff;
65.5. Punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages to be assessed for mental stress and aguish, humiliation, anxiety shock, distress, injuries to pride and dignity;
65.6 That the 1st to the 49th Defendants be personally held liable and pay the cost of this action; and or alternatively
65.7. The 50th Defendant be held liable to bear the costs and / or total costs of damages inflicted onto the Plaintiff resulting from the acts of the 1st to the 49th Defendants;
65.8. Statutory interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of judgment to the date of full payment of the said sum; and
65.9. Any further or other relief or orders deemed fit and proper by the Court.
Dated the 30st day of January 2009
The Plaintiff In Person
INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM
RM 225.00 (or such sum as may be allowed on taxation for costs) and also , if the Plaintiff obtains an Order for substituted service , the further sum of RM60.00 ( or such sum as may be allowed for taxation). If the amount claimed and cost be paid to the Plaintiff or his advocate within 10 / 20 days after service hereof, ( inclusive of the day of service ) further proceedings will be stayed but if it appears from the indorsement on the writ that the Plaintiff is resident outside the scheduled territories as defined in the exchange Control Act , 1953 is acting by Order or on behalf of a person so resident, proceedings will only be stayed if the amount claimed and cost is paid into Court within the said time and notice of such payment in is given to the Plaintiff or his advocates .
INDORSEMENT AS TO ADVOCATE AND ADDRESS
THIS WRIT is issued by the Plaintiff whose address for service is at E 25, Lorong Pecky Valley 1, Taman Pecky Valley, Mile 2, Labuk Road, 90000 Sandakan, Sabah.
NOTICE OF SERVICE ON MANAGER OF PARTNERSHIP
TAKE NOTICE that the writ served herewith is served on you as the person having the management or control of the Defendant business or work
Dated this day of 2009
Hassnar B. Hj MP Ebrahim @ Asainar
The Plaintiff In Person
INDORSEMENT OF SERVICE AS TO SERVICE
THIS WRIT was served by/by way of personal service or by -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------on the Defendants (who is known to me )(or who was pointed out to me by -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )(or who admitted to me that he was ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- at --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(place) on the day of 2009 .
INDORSED the day of 2009.
( signed)
No comments:
Post a Comment