KOTA KINABALU, Oct 27 — The Sabah Native Court of Appeal has overturned an earlier decision by the Papar Native Court ordering a senior state civil servant to pay sogit — three buffaloes and RM3,000 — for mianu-anu (enticing another man’s wife), citing serious procedural flaws and lack of sufficient evidence.
The appellate panel ruled that the proceedings in the lower courts were “irregular and incompetent”, and ordered that both the Papar Native Court and District Native Court of Papar decisions be set aside.
The case stemmed from a 2024 complaint by Datuk Claudius Roman, a former deputy secretary of the state and president of the Sabah Council of Datuks against Datuk Robert Stidi, 57, a senior civil servant, accusing him of “interfering” with his 34-year-old wife – Donna Elizabeth Kong.
The case, filed in the Papar Native Court in October last year, found Stidi guilty of violating Kadazandusun customary law and ordered him to pay three buffaloes and RM3,000 in sogit within a month.
The case drew wide attention as one of the most high-profile adultery-related disputes heard in Sabah’s native court system.
However, in December, the Papar District Native Court of Appeal dismissed the case and gave Claudius 60 days to file an appeal with the Native Court of Appeal in Kota Kinabalu.
The Sabah Native court today also agreed with the Papar District Native Court and found multiple breaches of procedure.
Among them: Multiple photographs of Stidi with Kong did indicate “closeness”, but they were not sufficient to prove adultery or a breach of customary law.
“The Native Court cannot adjudicate on evidence produced through modern technology the same way as in the days of old,” the judges said, stressing that proper evidentiary procedures must be observed even in customary cases.
The court also said the initial complaint filed by the plaintiff was not a valid summons under Rule 7 of the Native Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules 1995, and the prescribed fee was paid only after judgment had been delivered.
The appellate court also noted that no proper notice of hearing was issued, the defendant’s written defence was ignored, and the court wrongly issued a second summons for sogit kemaluan zina — “shame of adultery” — a charge not recognised under native law — creating confusion over the nature of the case.
The court also found that the lower tribunal failed to record any oral witness testimony, had no notes of proceedings, and that text messages and photographs produced did not establish proof of illicit intercourse (mianu-anu) or enticement.
Claudius was represented by Jecky Lettong and Isaiah Majinbon, while Robert was represented by Mark Sitiwin and Beverley Ramona Tan.
In a statement following the decision, Majinbon, said they respected the Native Court of Appeal’s ruling but noted that the case carried wider implications for the development of native jurisprudence in Sabah.
Majinbon said the ruling highlighted the ongoing tension between applying civil court standards of evidence and procedure to native tribunals, which were designed to uphold adat (custom) and restorative justice rather than punitive law.
He cautioned that imposing strict evidentiary and procedural rules on native proceedings could risk alienating communities from a justice system that was meant to be accessible and culturally grounded.
“The Native Courts are not relics of the past; they are living institutions that embody the conscience, traditions and values of Sabah’s indigenous peoples,” he said.
Majinbon added that his firm would review the written grounds of judgment when released and advise on the next course of action, which could be a judicial review.
