Humble fishmonger wins $$M land case against top businessman

By Ignatius Stephen

A sensational, ground breaking million dollar land case, which has been the talk of the town in the oil town Belait in recent times have ended in the Brunei High Court with a humble, illiterate 83-year-old fishmonger winning the action over a high flying Brunei businessman.
Kheng Ah Beng, from Kuala Belait won his case for damages against a local leading businessman, Hj Roney bin Hj Roslee @ Roni bin Hj Hj Rosli for breach of trust in selling one-half share of his land in Kuala Belait and refusing to give him his one-half share of the proceeds.

The valuable sea front 1.5-acre property near the Seaview Hotel bought in 1970 for $25,000 was now sold for $1.6 million, the court heard and then the tussle for the share from the proceeds began ending with the court ordering the businessman to pay up half of the money to the fisherman.

The Judicial Commissioner, Mr James Findlay, heard that Kheng had bought in equal shares a piece of the land in Kuala Belait with Hj Roney's father in 1970 for $25,000.

This land was sold this year by Hj Roney for $1.6 million and when Hj Roney was asked to return one-half of the sale price, Hj Roney refused saying that he had no knowledge of the matters between Kheng and his father, the court heard.

The story unfolded when Kheng informed the Court that sometime in late 1969 or early 1970 when he learnt about the sale of the land involved in this case and had the opportunity to buy it.

He approached Hj Roney's father and suggested that they should buy it jointly.

Hj Roney's father told Kheng that the land could not be registered in Kheng's name because he was not a citizen of Brunei and Hj Roney's father did not want to register the land in his name because he was a government official.

Hj Roney's father said that the land would be registered in the name of Hj Roney his son, who would hold it in trust for them.

Kheng agreed to this, but said that he would hold the original land title. He asked Hj Roney's father for a document acknowledging the position.

Later, Hj Roney's father did indeed give Kheng such a document, headed "Receipt" which was signed with the purported signature of Hj Roney.

Some months later, Hj Roney gave Mr. Kheng the original land title.

In 1971, when Kheng's daughter became a Brunei citizen, he wanted his one-half share to be registered in his daughter's name.

He approached Hj Roney's father with this request but was told that Hj Roney was away overseas and he should wait until he returned. Kheng made the same request several times but Hj Roney's father gave reasons for not doing so.

When Hj Roney's father died, Kheng went with his daughter to see the widow. He told the widow that he was waiting for a long time for the land to be subdivided and transferred to his daughter. The widow did not reply.

Sometime in August 1993, Kheng learned that the land was being cleared of vegetation.

His son spoke to Hj. Roney about Kheng's half share and Hj. Roney denied any knowledge of this.

His son invited Hj. Roney to inspect the receipt and the original land title but he refused.

Kheng's daughter took some pictures of the clearing of the land. The clearing of the land then stopped.

Kheng's two sons and two daughters also gave evidence in court.

In giving evidence in court, Hj. Roney said that, after his father died, his father left him a sum of cash and the piece of land concerned in this litigation.

Before this he had no knowledge of the land. The first time he saw the documentary title to the land was at this time.

He said that he had the original title to the land and it was an old document in a plastic folder.

In 2008, when Hj. Roney received enquiries about selling the land he could not find the title deed.

He reported the loss of this document and obtained a new extract of title.

In 2009, he sold the land for $1.6 million. He said that he had no notice of Kheng's claim until he received a writ of summons.

He denied the conversation with Kheng's son at the time the land was being cleared and denied that he received any communication from Kheng's family about Kheng's claim.

Hj. Mohd Dennis Bin Hj Roslee, Hj. Roney's brother, gave evidence. He said that he had no knowledge of the land until his father died.

Hj. Roney's mother, Hajjah Halimah binte Kamaluddin, gave evidence.

She denied that Mr. Kheng visited her after the death of her husband, but admitted that many people did so.

She said at the request of Hj. Roney to search for documents, she did so and, very recently, she found what purported to be a copy of a letter, which is undated, sent by Hj. Roney's father to Kheng.

The copy says that a copy was sent to the senior land officer. An official from the land office gave evidence before the court and she told the court that there was no copy of this letter on the file.

Judge Findlay found that the evidence of Kheng, "hangs together well and has a solid ring of truth about it.

"The evidence of giving the receipt and the land title by the defendant's, Hj Roney's father is convincing and I accept it.

"Indeed, there is no evidence to the contrary. That being so, clearly there was a common intention by the Plaintiff, Kheng, and the defendant's father to create a trust in favour of the plaintiff with the defendant as a trustee of the plaintiff's, Kheng's half share," the judge added.

The Judge found that the "evidence produced by the defendant, Hj Roney, does not, in my view, portray a convincing story.

"The defendant's evidence about being in possession of what, on his evidence, could only be the original document title and his inability to find it subsequently gives a lie to his story.

"Clearly, it is not possible that the original title deed could have been in his possession when it was in the possession of the plaintiff and he has produced it," the court remarked.

The Judge found Kheng's evidence, "About what happened when it was found out that the land was being cleared is utterly convincing

"Instead of treating the claim seriously, the defendant, Hj Roney, deliberately refused to take any steps to consider the plaintiff's claim and decided to hold on to the whole of the land for his own benefit.

"It must be that the defendant knew well that if he took opportunity to look at the receipt and the land title, he would have no choice but to recognise the plaintiff's rights.

"Knowing of, or deliberately refusing to consider the plaintiff's claim, he purported to hold the land for his own benefit, he sold it for his own benefit and kept all the proceeds for his own benefit. In that, he was clearly guilty of a breach of trust and he must be held to account for this,' the court said.

"On my assessment of the evidence and weighing the probabilities, I am completely convinced that the plaintiff, Kheng, and his witnesses have told the truth.

"I am utterly unconvinced by the defendant, Hj. Roney's case and have a firm suspicion that I have been lied to.

"That being the case, it would, in my view, be a rank injustice if the plaintiff, Kheng were to be denied his rights to the half share and if the defendant (Hj. Roney) were to be allowed to keep the whole of the proceeds of the sale of the land into which he had no input whatsoever," the court found.

The court then ordered Hj. Roney to return one-half of the proceeds of the sale of the land to Kheng.

Kheng was represented by Mr. Daljit Singh Sandhu and Mr. Vincent Joseph of Messrs. Sandhu & Company.

Ms. Faridah Abang Zen and Ms. Koh Shiao Hui of Messrs. D F Abang Zen acted for Hj Roney.

Source: Click here.