In representative actions, plaintiffs must establish authority to act on behalf of others, supported by tangible evidence, particularly when asserting NCR claims.

[1] The Plaintiffs in the present case, altogether of them are taking this representative actions for themselves and on behalf of the other villagers of kampungs, claiming NCR over lands created by or inherited from their ancestors prior to the cut off date of 1st January 1958. Out of 30 the named Plaintiffs, only 14 of them testified to buttress their claim in this NCR action.

[2] The areas in which the Plaintiffs claim to have acquired NCR covered a wide area of lands and can be seen from the maps marked as "M1", "M2", "M3", "M4" and "M5" (Exh PCB (C) pp 7 to 12) prepared by Nicholas Mujah Anak Ason (PW3).

[3] Sometimes in 2010, the Plaintiffs alleged that they had found their NCR lands were encroached by the 1st and the 2nd Defendants who were granted with the three provisional leases described as Lot 2985, Lot 261 and Lot 2986 of Melikin Land District, containing an area of approximately 8,724 hectares which according to the Plaintiffs, overlaps or sits within the lands which they claimed to have cleared, settled and cultivated thereon.

[4] As against the 3rd and 4th Defendants who are both the state authority and its agent responsible for the issuance of the said provisional leases, the Plaintiffs claimed that they are in breached of their fiduciary duty for failure to protect the Plaintiffs' NCR over the said lands over which the provisional leases were issued.

[5] For the purposes of this judgment, I would only be contented to deal with the main issues, one of which is whether the Plaintiffs' action is truly a representative action. Out of the 14 witnesses called by the Plaintiffs to testify, only three of them are Tuai Rumah of their respective villages namely Nyalu Anak Tampa (PW4), Mancha Anak Sang (PW10) and Musit Anak Ngawing (PW11).

[6] On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd Defendants' witnesses are mostly comprised of Tuai Rumahs of their respective villages of which residents or the villagers therein, the Plaintiffs claimed to represent. The Tuai Rumahs are Jambang Anak Enjah (DW2) of Kampung Tanah Mawang Menyang, Jaban Anak Uja (DW3) of Kampung Krangan Jaya, Juti Anak Namba (DW5) of Kampung Krangan Engkatak, Empati Anak Ningkan (DW6) of Kampung Krangan Trusan, Sepurun Anak Bitong (DW7) of Kampung Kranji Atas, Bakat Anak Mundar (DW8) of Kampung Kranji Baruh and Forman Anak Sedi (DW9) of Kampung Ensebang, Sungai Burak.

[7] Considering the majority of the Tuai Rumahs of the respective villages listed in this action were giving evidence for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it would be reasonable for me to make some inference that the Plaintiffs NCR action herein is taken without the consent and blessing of their fellow villagers of the respective villages they claimed to represent. These Tuai Rumahs of the 1st and 2nd Defendants' witnesses had unequivocally testified that they had not authorized the Plaintiffs to commence this action on their behalf as well as on behalf of the villagers under their charge as Tuai Rumah of the respective villages.

[8] The village witnesses of the Plaintiffs who are not Tuai Rumah were unable to come out with any documents to show that they have been elected, authorized or are permitted to represent the fellow villagers from the respective villages in this action. Similarly, the named Plaintiffs who are Tuai Rumahs did not say that the villagers under their charge had agreed to authorize them to take up this representative action on their behalf. In the absence of this evidence, the Plaintiffs representative action