KOTA KINABALU: A senior state civil servant, Datuk Robert Stidi, who was slapped with a fine of three buffaloes and RM3,000 by the Native Court in Sabah for enticing the wife of a retired civil servant, Datuk Claudius Roman, last year by the Papar Native Court, has been thrown out due to irregularities in proceedings.
The Native Court of Appeal of Sabah, which sat on Monday (Oct 27), set aside the decisions of the Papar Native Court and also the appeal decision of the Papar District Native Court, which had overturned the decision to fine Stidi, 58.
The Native Court of Appeal determined that the letter filed by Claudius,76, alleging an affair with another man’s wife, is not a valid summons according to Rule 7 of the Native Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules 1995.
Furthermore, the letter was issued on Sept 14 2024 and was found to be irregular because the prescribed fee was only paid on Oct 24 2024, after the decision of the Papar Native Court on Oct 23 2024.
The Native Court erred by failing to issue a notice of hearing and instead issued a second summons for ‘sogit kemaluan zina’ (close proximity), which caused confusion regarding the deadline for the filing of the defence by the Stidi, 58, the Native Court of Appeal said after reviewing the case.
The Papar Native Court was also found to have erred in failing to consider the Stidi’s defence dated Oct 22 during the hearing the next day Oct 23, 2024.
The Native Court of Appeal ruled that the proceedings before the Papar Native Court were not competent and set it aside.
The court also found that recordings of various witnesses' evidence, phone messages, and telephone numbers were not included in the proceedings related to the claims made by Claudius against his Stidi, who was accused of having an affair with his 35-year-old wife.
In its judgment, the Native Court of Appeal found that this was not mere technical non-compliance but a breach of law.
“The Native Court cannot adjudicate based on evidence produced through modern technology in the same way as in the past, and this includes the hotel booking, which does not establish a link between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s wife.
“Regarding the photographs, the Defendant admitted that they depict himself and the Plaintiff’s wife. However, while they suggest ‘closeness’, they are not enough to prove zina/mianu-anu (close proximity/flirting), which requires evidence of illicit intercourse.
“The evidence before the Court was not sufficient to show an affair/enticement of the Plaintiff’s wife,” the Native Court of Appeal found.
Cladius was represented by counsel Jecky Lettong and Isaiah Majinbon, while Stidi was represented by counsel Mark Sitiwin and Beverley Ramona Tan.
Last year, the Papar native court found Stedi guilty of violating the customs of the Kadazandusun people in Papar, but the decision was appealed by Stedi at the Papar District Native Court, which overturned the lower court's ruling.
