Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples 69 5.5 This was well illustrated in the landmark case of Rambilin binti Ambit v Assistant Collector for Land Revenues Pitas,202 which was heard together with another two actions, namely Rambilin binti Ambit v Director of Lands and Surveys, Sabah, Assistant Collector for Land Revenues, Pitas Registrar of Titles203 and Rambilin binti Ambit v Ruddy Awah.204 The dispute in that case involved a parcel of two plots of land measuring a total of 15 acres situated in the District of Pitas. Rambilin Ambit’s father purchased the two plots of land from two different parties in 1982, and gave the plots to his daughter, Rambilin. On the facts, Rambilin had occupied those plots. Although at some point she did move away to join her husband who was transferred to another town, she came back periodically to see the land. Her application for the land to be alienated and registered in her name was made in 1989 but the Assistant Collector of Land Revenue (ACLR) did not make any decision on her application. However, unbeknown to her, the ACLR had rejected her application in 1992. The letter and notice of rejection was neither posted nor served on Rambilin in the manner as required by Rule 8 of the Land Rules. In the meantime, the two plots of land were registered and titles were issued in the name of one Ruddy Awah and another person in November 2001. 5.6 In an action for judicial review, the High Court had to determine a number of questions including whether: a) Rambilin had acquired rights by purchase of land? b) Whether natives could enter State land without approval of the State to create customary rights? c) Whether customary rights existed when there was a failure to register the customary right under the procedure prescribed by the Ordinance. 5.7 It was established that the land was purchased by Rambilin’s father and transferred to her. Since customary tenure is heritable, she had acquired customary tenure. Section 88 of the SLO expressly exempts from registration, land that is still held under customary tenure. Although, she did not continuously stay on the land - on occasions she went back to the land to cultivate it and to stay in the house that was erected on the land - the court held that what was required, was not necessarily physical possession, but exclusive acts of dominance. The kind of acts and how many, can be accepted as proof of exclusive use, must depend to a great extent on the manner in which the particular kind of property is commonly used.205 It was declared that Rambilin was entitled to possession and /or to recover possession. Her occupation of the land was lawful and she proved her claim for trespass against the defendant, Ruddy. 5.8 Tracing the development of the law since the time of the North Borneo Company, to the colonial administration and to the present Government, Justice Ian Chin declared that there had not been any “plain and unambiguous” intention to extinguish the customary rights of native “to enter State land to create native customary rights”. Thus, natives who entered State land for that purpose were not guilty of trespass under section 164. Ian Chin J declared that there was no need for a native to seek permission from the Government to 202 Three cases were heard together in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu: Rambilin binti Ambit v Assistant Collector For Land Revenues Pitas (Judicial Review K 25-02-2002); Rambilin binti Ambit v Director of Lands and Surveys, Sabah, Assistant Collector For Land Revenues, Pitas Registrar of Titles (Judicial Review K 240-2002); Rambilin binti Ambit v Ruddy Awah(Civil Suit K 22-71-2000 in open court, 9 July 2007). 203 Judicial Review K 24-240-2002 204 Civil Suit K 22-71-2000 (in open court, 9 July 2007). 205 Referring to Pollock & Wright’s, Possession in the Common Law, at p 30 chapter 5_a4.indd 69 7/5/13 6:47 PM