Judicial review is the appropriate remedy for challenges to administrative decisions, particularly regarding native customary rights, as private claims do not address public law elements directly affecting those rights.

[1] The Plaintiffs are the residents of Long Napir and Kampung Bahagia, Limbang and have been residing at Long Napir and Kampung Bahagia, Limbang since the 1960s and 1970s.

[2] This is a derivative action by the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs on behalf of the Kelabits, by the 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs on behalf of the Penans and by the 5th and 6th Plaintiffs on behalf of the Lun Bawangs of Long Napir and Kampung Bahagia, all of whom claimed to have originated from Abpa/Fa Meriit, Fa Rupu Abpa/Fa Adang, Ba Peresek, Ba Nyakit, Long Gita, Long Adang, Long Sulung, Long Raya, Long Tevenga, Long Sebayang, Long Keneng and Long Tegan in the Upper Limbang River and who claimed that as natives of Sarawak, they have acquired and or inherited native customary rights (NCR) over these areas or lands since time immemorial. The areas or lands claimed by them collectively are shown in a map marked 'M' annexed to the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiffs did not set out or plead the areas or the size of the NCR lands claimed by them.

[3] The 1st Defendant is the holder of a timber license No. T/0294 which was issued by the 5th Defendant on 28 January 1985. The 2nd Defendant is the holder of a planted forest license No. LPF/0027 issued on 22 February 2004. The 3rd Defendant is the holder of a planted forest license No. LPF/0038 issued on 12 Jun 2004. The 4th Defendant is the holder of a timber license No.T/9090 issued on 1 Disember 2010. The Plaintiffs claimed that pursuant to the licenses, the Defendants entered, encroached and trespassed into their NCR lands to cut and harvest timbers and to maintain planted forests for merchantable timbers. They pleaded that the areas covered by the licenses overlap with their NCR lands, are subject to their NCR land and that the Defendants have not conducted any ground survey to identify the boundary of and exclude the NCR lands from the licensed areas (see paragraphs 2-7 and 19-24 of the Statement of Claim).

[4] The Plaintiffs in paragraphs 25 to 30 of the Statement of Claim pleaded that the grant and issuance of the licenses by the 5th and 6th Defendants to the 1st to 4th Defendants under the Forests Ordinance was unconstitutional and wrongful in so far as they abridged and impaired the Plaintiffs' rights to their NCR lands. The Plaintiffs pleaded that their NCR rights have not been extinguished and that they have not been compensated in accordance to the provisions of the Land Code when their NCR lands were licensed or alienated to the Defendants.

[5] In paragraphs 36.1 and 36.2, the Plaintiffs pleaded that they have a legitimate expectation that their rights, traditions, cultures and livelihoods would not be disrupted and that they had a right to be heard before the licenses were issued to the 1st to 4th Defendants. It was pleaded that as natives of Sarawak they should have been given the lands instead of the Defendants and that the laws discriminated against the Plaintiffs in this respect. It was also pleaded in paragraph 37 that the 5th and 6th Defendants had acted unreasonably and had failed to take relevant matters into consideration when they granted and issued the licenses to the 1st to 4th Defendants. Accordingly the Plaintiffs sought several declaratory orders and damages against the Defendants.

[6] The 5th and 6th Defendants submitted that the lands claimed by the Plaintiffs were still virgin jungles in 1956. It was pleaded that parts of the lands claimed by the Plaintiffs fell within the Limbang Protected Forests and the Pulang Tau National Park. Therefore, the Defendants denied the allegations of the Plaintiffs that they have acquired and or inherited the NCR lands and in particular on the history of the settlements on the lands by their ancestors and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof.

[7] The 5th and 6th Defendants submitted that the licenses wer