By Originating Summons dated 30/10/2003 - end 3 - ['the application'] the plaintiff prays for an Order that the plaintiff be given possession of all the parcel of land situate at Bukit Berayon, Niah containing an area of 1054 hectares, more or less and described as Lot 931 Niah Land District on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to possession and that the defendants are in occupation without licence or consent.

The areas in dispute are marked in the map or plan in Exh A-5 in the affidavit in reply by the 1st defendant, Ading anak Layang, affirmed on 12/3/2004 - encl 25 - [1st defendant's affidavit in reply'].

The area claimed by the plaintiff, that is Lot 931 Niah Land District ['the land'], is within the area that is edged in green in Exh A-5 of 1st defendant affidavit. For this area, the plaintiff has been issued with a provisional lease ['the PL'] title by the Superintendent of Lands and

-2-

Surveys under the provisions of the Sarawak Land Code ['the Code']. The PL is exhibited as Exh. DE-1 in the plaintiff's affidavit in support of the application, affirmed by Sanggau @ Dunstan Endawie Anak Briton on 24/10/2003 - encl 2 - ['Dunstan's affidavit']

It is also marked in Exh A-5 the area, which the defendants 1 to 6 claimed to be the native customary land of the three longhouses namely Rumah Ulat, Rumah William Tinggang and Rumah Muyang. This area is edged in red, which the 1st to the 6th defendants claimed to be the boundary or 'garis menua', in Exh. A-5 and comprised all the area within it. Rumah Ulat is shaded in yellow on Exh A-5.

The 1st to 6th defendants opposed the application on the sole ground that they have native customary rights over the land. The 1st to 6th defendants who are all from Rumah Ulat (as can be seen from the address used in the Originating Summons} also claimed that in opposing the application they represent the occupants of Rumah Ulat, Rumah William and Rumah Muyang. The plaintiff denies the 1st to 6th defendants representative capacity and also denies that the 1st to 6th defendants have any claim of native customary rights ["NCR"] over any part of the Lot 931- the land. Instead the plaintiff said that it had been issued with the PL and therefore is entitled to the possession of the land. Plaintiff also said

-3-

that the 1st to 6th defendants must prove their claim of NCR over the land and this they have not done so. In answer to this contention the 1st to 6th defendants said that for the purpose of this application all they have to do is to show a triable case or triable issues; if they can do it the application should not be allowed and the matter should be put to trial.

To support their claim for NCR the 1st to 6th defendants have, in the 1st defendant affidavit in opposition affirmed by Ading ak Layang - encl 12 - [1st defendant affidavit in opposition], exhibited Exh A-l which is alleged to be Composite Plan Showing Distribution of Native Farming Land at Sua/Niah/Sibuti Misc. Plan No.4/1249-3. 1st to 6th defendants contended that Exh A-l shows that between 1939 and 1954 the communal native customary land boundary of the three longhouses i.e. Rh. Ulat, Rh. William and Rh. Muyang was officially demarcated and recorded by the Government. According to the 1st defendant, Exh A-l was given to the defendants by an official of the Lands and Surveys Department Miri many years ago. The 1st defendant in his affidavit also said that defendants had not been told by the Government that Exh A-l has been withdrawn, revoked or not recognized. Paragraphs 3.1 and 8.2 of the 2nd defendant affidavit affirmed by Guyang ak Ujan on 12/3/2004 - encl 26 - ['2nd defendant's affidavit in reply] also averred to the same facts. In other words the 1st to 6th defendants are saying that Exh. A-l is the evidence of

.4.

their claim of NCR over the land Lot 931. The 1st defendant also averred in his affidavit in opposition [encl 12] that the defendants have been continuously using and occupying the native customary l