The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, finding insufficient evidence to prove native customary rights existed or were valid under applicable laws.

[1] In this appeal, the appellants and the respondents will be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants respectively as they were referred to in the High Court suit. The plaintiffs brought this action on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the residents of 15 villages namely, Kampung Menyang "A" Tanah Mawang, Kampung Tapang Maong, Kampung Sungai Linsat, Kampung Krangan Sungai Katak, Kampung Krangan, Kampung Semukoi, Kampung Krangan Trusan, Kampung Tekalong, Kampung Krangan Jaya, Kampung Krangan Baru, Kampung Simpang Melikin, Kampung Danau Melikin B, Kampung Emperan Melaban, Kampung Kranji Atas and Kampung Kranji Baruh, all situated in Melikin, Balai Ringin, Serian District, Sarawak.

[2] The plaintiffs claimed that their ancestors had cleared, occupied, cultivated and gathered jungle produce from a wide area of lands and the surrounding lands of the villages which they have occupied until today, in accordance to the traditions and customary practices of the Iban. They claimed that they have acquired and inherited the native customary rights (NCR) lands from their ancestors, which are delineated and particularised in a map marked "M1", "M2", "M3", "M4" and "M5" which were annexed to their statement of claim.

[3] They pleaded that sometime in 2010, they found that the 1st and 2nd defendants, their employees, servants, agents and or contractors had trespassed and encroached upon their NCR lands to carry out logging and land clearing works, claiming to have been granted provisional leases of State land namely Lot 2985, Lot 2986 and Lot 261 over their lands, in particular part of Sungai Puteh, foot of Bukit Bedegum, Bukit Peniki Guwek, Ulu Sungai Pawang, with bulldozers and lorries, destroying and damaging their lands and their crops. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions caused pollution and silting of the rivers which they depended on for their water supply and fishing. The plaintiffs claimed that there was no prior extinguishment of their NCR over the said lands nor any compensation paid for their NCR lands. The plaintiffs contended that the alienations of the provisional leases by the 3rd and 4th defendants to the 1st and 2nd defendants were unlawful, null and void.

[4] The plaintiffs prayed, inter alia, for: (i) a declaration that they have native customary rights over the lands; (ii) a declaration that the issuance of the provisional leases to the 1st and 2nd defendants in so far as they impaired the plaintiffs' NCR lands was null and void; (iii) a declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents or servants had trespassed and continue to trespass their NCR lands; (iv) an injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents or servants from trespassing, entering or using their NCR lands; and (v) damages to be assessed. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claims.

[5] After the trial, the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and the 1st and 2nd defendants' counterclaim. This is the plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment. There is no appeal by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Submissions

[6] It was submitted that the learned Judge had erred in construing and applying the principle in respect of the representative action. The claims by the plaintiffs for the villagers, even though there were opposing factions, did not in any way limit the representative capacity of the plaintiffs under O 15 r 12 Rules of 2012 and all that was required was for the plaintiffs to show that there was a common grievance and a common interest amongst the plaintiffs and those they sought to represent and that the reliefs were beneficial to all if successful. As to the reliefs beneficial to all, it would be of b