Advocates:
For the plaintiffs - Baru Bian; M/s Baru Bian
For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Tan Thiam Teck; M/s Reddi & Co
For the 3rd defendant - Susan Gau

Key Points: - The plaintiffs, representing a longhouse community, claimed native customary rights (temuda, pulau, and pemakai menoa) over a disputed area of land (!) (!) . - The court examined the historical context of land rights in Sarawak from the Sultan of Brunei's reign to Malaysia's formation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The defendants initially contended that the plaintiffs were not Ibans, but this argument was abandoned (!) (!) . - The court accepted that the plaintiffs' assertion of being Iban and speaking the Iban language constituted sufficient prima facie evidence (!) . - The court found that the plaintiffs' claim for declarations made the action a suitable representative action, even if damages were not awarded (!) . - The court defined "pemakai menoa" as a territorial domain of a longhouse community, "temuda" as farm land (including fallow land), and "pulau" as primary forest preserved for resources (!) (!) (!) . - The court found that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had exercised these native customary rights in the disputed area (!) (!) . - The court determined that the plaintiffs' native customary rights had survived various legislative changes and orders throughout Sarawak's history (!) (!) (!) . - The court declared the plaintiffs entitled to exercise native customary rights in the disputed area and issued an injunction against the defendants entering the area (!) . - The title issued to the 1st defendant, which included the disputed area, was declared void (!) .

What is the definition of "native customary rights" in Sarawak?

What are the rights of an Iban in relation to land without documentary title?

How have native customary rights been affected by legislation in Sarawak?