The court emphasized that native customary rights protect landowners from being unjustly dispossessed, particularly in joint venture agreements where consent must be clear and documented.

[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff for an order as follows:-

(a) An order the Defendants do forthwith deliver and surrender vacant possession of all that parcels of land described as Lot 1, Block 22, Sawai Land District and Lot 61, Block 22, Sawai Land District (collectively described as "the Project Area") or parts thereof to the Plaintiff.

(b) An interim injunction to restrain the Defendants whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from entering, occupying, remaining in possession and/or engaging in any activity in the Project Area and or parts thereof or at all.

(c) An order that the Defendants by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise do forthwith cease harvesting fresh fruits bunch (FFB) from and all activities on the Project Area or parts thereof.

[2] The grant of an injunction is discretionary. The correct approach to be adopted when a court decides whether to grant an interlocutory injunction is that the plaintiff's case is not frivolous or vexatious in that there is a serious question to be tried. Having decided that, the next question is whether damages would constitude an adequate remedy. If so, and the defendant is in a financial position to pay the damages, then the injunction should not be granted. In the event damages would not be an adequate remedy, the court will have to consider where does the justice of the case lies: American Cynamid Co v. Ethicon [1975] AC 396, Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun Abdullah, [1995] 1 MLJ 193.

[3] The facts in this case are as follows. The Penans of Kampung Jambatan Suai have acquired native customary rights (NCR) over two parcels of land containing an aggregate area of 2,128 hectares and described as Lot 1 and Lot 61 of Block 22 Sawai Land District (the land). The Sarawak Government and the NCR land owners were desirous to develop the land into an oil palm plantation. The Government nominated the Sarawak Land Development Board (SLDB) as the agency and trustee to act on behalf of the NCR owners to develop the land.

[4] By a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 26 October 1999 entered into between SLDB and Sarawak Plantation Sdn Bhd (Sarawak Plantation), SLDB and Sarawak Plantation agreed to form a joint venture company called Titian Tepat Sdn Bhd (Titian Tepat), with the NCR owners holding 30% shares in Titian Tepat, to develop the land into the oil palm plantation.

[5] On 20 March 2003, the Sarawak Government decided to hand over the role of agency and trustee from SLDB to the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA). By an assignment SLDB assigned all its rights, benefits and interests in the JVA to LCDA. Subsequently the name of the JV company was changed from Titian Tepat to SPB Pelita Suai Sdn Bhd, which is the Plaintiff in this action.

[6] The Plaintiff averred that there were 150 NCR land owners who participated in the plantation project and the average land-holding size of the participants is about 12.12 hectares. The Plaintiffs averred that the 6 Defendants are among the 150 NCR owners in the plantation project. It was pleaded that by signing their respective memorandum of consent, the Defendants had agreed to have their NCR land developed under the Sarawak Government Scheme for NCR land into an oil palm plantation.

[7] The Plaintiff averred that on 13 January 2010, 11 years after the inception of the plantation project in 1999, 80 of the NCR owners, affecting an area of approximately 1,175 hectares, led by the Defendants in breach of the memorandum of consent, the JVA and or arrangement or agreement entered into between the NCR owners and the Plaintiff suddenly decided to pull out from the plantation project. The reason given was t