Finding Nicosia: A foreign postmark on a stamp of North Borneo

Upon acquiring a mixed lot of North Borneo stamps - I should say it was the sole reason of buying the lot - I noticed a peculiar postmark, which I have never seen before especially on a North Borneo stamp. 

Observed is an ISC299 Green and red-brown tied with a single ring NICO(S?) / 3.30 / 1 /  4 /  (C?) on the right cancellation, and I believe the left cancellation is JesselTON.

Initially I Googled 'Nicos postmark' but to no avail. It led me to a bunch of stamp exhibition reports as the keywords matched but it was not the match I was expecting. 

Later on I went on to check on British Commonwealth postmarks by Robert S. Cragg listed on his website. It was arduous but I made some progress from it. 

It might just be Nicosia, Cyprus. It made sense, but I, for a novice, cannot be too sure unless there is an actual scan of the postmark itself for comparison. Simultaneously I posted a scan of this stamp on Facebook and Stampboards. 

A fellow collector, Nbp William on Facebook gave just what I needed - proof that it is Nicosia. 

Similarly on Stampboards, the answers were insightful. It did match with Nicosia Proud D17, which was pointed out by iaincraven, that the overall postmark had spacing issues and the number '3' was probably retouched by a postal clerk after cancelling. 

I decided to merge the two scans together and created a perfect match. The questions I have always been asking is now solved. 

Just as I thought it was the end of this conundrum, S.I Liew on Facebook pointed out the peculiarity of a stamp bearing postmarks of both sending and receiving ends, in this case Jesselton, North Borneo and Nicosia, Cyprus. While this did not occur to me due to the current obsession of solving just what Nicoc meant, I do agree that stamps affixed would only be cancelled in the sending end as means of postage paid whereas transit and arrival postmarks would normally be seen on the cover especially on the back side. 

Phila-tourist on Stampboards suggested that two distinct postmarks on the same stamp might be due to restricted space for applying postmarks or the stamp may have been affixed on the back of the envelope, thus, 'competing' for space in the same place where transit and arrival postmarks are usually striked on.

Now that these possibilities were pointed out, I remember having an envelope and a stamp with the same scenario - perhaps the postmarks were also 'competing' for space.

ISC345 30c Olive-brown was tied with TUARAN/NORTH BORNEO cds dated 12 OC 60 and a single ring arrival GEYLANG/SINGAPORE cds dated 14 OCT 60. 

Similarly, ISC143 3c Green tied with saNDAKAN/B.N.B cds dated 10 AP 1924 with double ring arrival SINGapore cds dated 19 AP 24. 

David Benson on Stampboards, on the other hand, suggested another seeming plausible possibility that two distinct postmarks on a single stamp may be due to a letter that has been readdressed, which a Cyprus stamp was pasted on the envelope next to the North Borneo stamp and the Nicosia cds that was intended to cancel the Cyprus stamp was partly applied onto the latter stamp too. 

Well, I guess that is all for this time's write-up. My doubts were all cleared. Special thanks to everyone who had contributed and commented on those two platforms.