“WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASES OF ADORNA AND TAN YING HONG ARE NOT SOMETHING NEW IN SABAH, WE HAVE SIMILAR SITUATIONS, IF NOT WORSE. CERTAIN REPORTED LAND SCAMS RESULTED ENTIRE VILLAGES GOING TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS,”

Sabah must amend land laws to curb fraudulent transfers

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah must amend its Land Ordinance to curb fraudulent land transfers.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk V. K. Liew said that the Sabah Land Ordinance did not have the protection clause existing in the National Land Code section 340 (2) that provided that a title or interest could be defeated “if such acquisition was done by fraud, misrepresentation or through dubious documentation.”

Liew, who is Liberal Democratic Party president, said in a statement that the issue of protection for titled land needed to be incorporated in the state’s land ordinance to avoid fraud and other illegal transfers.

Last week, the Federal Court plugged a legal loophole in Malaysian land law that allowed unscrupulous individuals to transfer land titles to third parties with legal immunity.

In a landmark a five-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi unanimously decided to reverse the ruling in the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit case in 2000.

In deciding on the case of Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & two others, the court ruled that transfers of property by fraudulent or forged documents were no longer legally valid under Section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965.

Liew said that while the Federal Court ruling was persuasive, it was not decisive in Sabah.

“This is because in Sabah we have the land ordinance that is distinct from the National Land Code. It is dead silent about the principle of deferred indefeasibility of the title,” he said.

“What happened in the cases of Adorna and Tan Ying Hong are not something new in Sabah, we have similar situations, if not worse. Certain reported land scams resulted entire villages going to certain individuals and corporations,” he said.

He said in cases of fraud, forgery or misrepresentation, Sabah had to rely on Section 88 and 117 of the Sabah Land Ordinance to deal with registration and rectification.

He said the ordinance was too old and gave too much power to the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue who exercised the power in a “quasi judicial manner.”