The court affirmed the plaintiffs' native customary rights and invalidated the provisional lease, emphasizing the necessity of precise surveying for NCR identification.

[1] These two appeals are related and we heard them together on 20 August 2015. In respect of Appeal No 353 the appeal is by the 1st defendant below - the Superintendent Of Land And Surveys Bahagian Mukah and by the 2nd defendant - the State Government of Sarawak. The appeal was against the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) granting prayer (h) and (i) of the plaintiffs' claim whereby the plaintiffs sought certain declaration; and also against the granting of prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction in prayers (j) and (k) respectively of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the 1st and 2nd defendants. Our decision in respect of this appeal is unanimous in that we allowed the 1st and 2nd defendants' appeal in respect of prayers (h), (j) and (k). We unanimously dismissed the appeal against prayer (i). Accordingly, we ordered that the prohibitory and mandatory injunction be set aside and the NCR land totaling 107.8331 hectares be taken out from the Provisional Lease Lot 24 granted to the 3rd defendant; and for this purpose we directed that a survey be conducted to determine and identify the exact area and size of the NCR within the Provisional Lease Lot 24 and the survey is to be conducted at the expense of the Superintendent of Land and Survey Bahagian Mukah. We made no order as to costs in this appeal.

[2] In respect of Appeal No 370, the appeal is by Delta Pelita Sebakong Sdn Bhd (Company No 358162-D) 3rd defendant in the COURT below against the decision of the learned JC allowing the plaintiffs' claim for NCR over 107.8311 hectares of land within the Plots C and D in the provisional lease granted to the 3rd defendant by the 1st defendant with the approval of the 2nd defendant. In this appeal our decision is also unanimous. We allowed the appeal in part in that the High COURT order for special damages to be assessed is set aside because the plaintiffs have not proven their special damages. The rest of the orders of the High COURT are affirmed subject only to our orders and decision in Appeal No 353 above. Parties are given liberty to apply. We also ordered no costs for this appeal with the deposit is to be refunded to the appellant.

[3] We pronounced our decision on these two appeals on the same day. The following are the reasons for our decision.

[4] The respondents in these two appeals are the same plaintiffs in the COURT below. These two appeals arose from the same decision made by the learned JC on 14 August 2014. The appellants and the respondents in these two appeals shall be referred to as they were before the learned JC below.

The Background Facts

[5] The background facts to these two appeals are summarized from the facts found by the learned JC in his grounds of judgment.

"The Plaintiffs in this case are all Iban by race. They commenced this representative action on behalf of themselves and 21 other families, or bilek proprietors, occupiers, holder and claimants of the Native Customary Rights Land situated at Sungai Baoh Chelum and Sungai Semaram, which are tributaries of Sungai Baoh which flows into Sungai Batang Oya ("the Plaintiffs' NCR).

The general location of the Plaintiffs' NCR land are shown on 2 maps or plans marked as Plan B1 and Plan B2 and the location is also shown in Exh P20 which is a Topographical 1:50,000 Map of Stapang.

On 16th May 2001, the 1st Defendant with the knowledge and authority of the 2nd Defendant issued a provisional lease described as Provisional Lease Lot 24 Mukah Land District ("PL Lot 24") to the 3rd Defendant.

Whe