The court emphasized that interlocutory injunctions should consider serious questions to be tried and balance the convenience of both parties, with damages serving as adequate compensation for native customary rights loss.

Introduction

1. This is an inter partes hearing of encl 4 for applying for inter alia an interim injunctive order against the 1^st Defendant and it is as follows:-

[a] That the aforesaid Defendant, CORAK NAKHODA SDN BHD be restrained whether by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise from entering and/or evicting the Plaintiffs' and/or destroying the Plaintiffs' Agricultural Crops/Fruits and/or demolishing any of the Plaintiffs' Dwelling Houses and Building Structures and other Facilities owned by the Plaintiffs' and/or destroying the Plaintiffs' ancestral graveyard and/or impeding the Plaintiffs' free access into or out of Land held under Provisional Lease No 096290676.

It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid prayer would virtually give the Plaintiff, the full relief actually sought to be secured at the final hearing by the Plaintiff in the Suit filed herein.

2. As against the 2^nd, 3^rd' 4^th and 5^th Defendants, the Plaintiffs are claiming the followings:-

[a] A declaration that the said 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants do consider and approve all outstanding land applications by the Plaintiffs for an area of 15 acres for each of the Plaintiffs within the impugned land;

[b] For a declaration that the Plaintiffs as natives of Sabah do have rights under the provisions of the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930 to exercise rights termed Native Customary Rights over State Land;

[c] For a declaration that the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants do consider additional or other relief for the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' Case

3. The Plaintiffs contend inter alia that they are members of various native communities primarily the Mangkak Community having possession of tracts of land within the Provisional Lease No 096290676, much of which were held in ancestral succession since 1930 under the Native Customary Right in accordance with the Sabah Land Code.

The Plaintiffs further contend that they have made land applications to areas within the said Provisional lease No 096290676 with many applications made before 1980, the land applied for by the Plaintiffs had been made prior and antecedent to the application made by the 1^st Defendant and the said land applications of the Plaintiffs had not been acted upon by the State Authority namely the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants.

The 1^st Defendant's Case

4. On the other hand the 1^st Defendant contends inter alia that they are legal and registered owner of the said No 096290676 by virtue of a title issued to them by the 4^th Defendant on 1/8/1998. As an act of good faith, as early as 1999, the 1^st Defendant had permitted unlawful occupants (presumably the Plaintiffs herein) to remain on 5 chains on either side of the road reserve which cut across the land and which is highlighted in yellow and within 10 chains on either side of the said road reserve which is shaded in blue on Exhibit "LCL-2" annexed to the Affidavit in Opposition of Lim Chin Lee affirmed on 26/11/2009. The 1^st Defendant undertook not to develop the areas where the school, church and other public amenities are located.

Relevant Law Governing The Grant Or Refusal Of Interlocutory Relief

5. The principles for the grant or refusal of interlocutory relief are well established and were stated by Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504. It is that on the material available to the court at the hearing of the application for interlocutory injunction, the court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tri