Haidar Mohd. Noor J:

The plaintiffs, by way of a representative action, filed this writ as amended pursuant to O. 20 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) (encl. 4) and sought the following:

1. A declaration that the plaintiffs have native customary rights over their land.

2. A declaration that this right precludes the 3rd defendant from impairing or abridging the plaintiffs' rights.

3. A declaration that the Proclamation dated 1 August 1951 (L.N. 188 of 1951), in so far as it impairs the plaintiffs' customary rights over their land as well as to take forest produce, is bad.

4. A declaration that the 3rd defendant is precluded from issuing any licence which affects the plaintiffs' said rights.

5. A declaration that s. 90B of the Forest Ordinance (Cap. 126) is void.

6. A declaration that the impairing of the plaintiffs' rights constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (equality before the law).

7. A declaration that the act of the 3rd defendant in issuing the said licence is void and/or wrongful.

8. A declaration that the issuance of the licence constitutes a violation of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. (No confiscation of property without adequate compensation).

9. A declaration that the issuance of the licence constitutes a violation of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. (No person to be deprived of his life, except in accordance with law).

10. A declaration that the said contract between the 1st and 2nd defendants is illegal as it is in breach of ss. 2(2), 49(2) and 51(4) of the Forest Ordinance (Sarawak Cap. 126).

11. A declaration that the 1st defendant and/or its agent or servants are trespassing on the plaintiff's customary land and/or otherwise unlawfully interfering with the plaintiffs' rights over the land.

12. A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession of the plaintiffs' customary land.

13. A prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants and/or their agents or servants from trespassing, entering or using the plaintiffs' customary land.

14. A mandatory injunction against the 1st and 2nd defendants to cease operations and remove all structures from the plaintiffs' customary land.

15. Damages.

16. Costs.

17. Such further or other relief as this Court deems just.

Consequent upon the filing of this writ by the plaintiffs, six applications were filed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants, viz.:

(i) summons in chambers dated 19 August 1989 (encl. 17) by the 1st and 2nd defendants under O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) and O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of the High Court for striking out the plaintiffs' writ and statement of claim or in the alternative in respect of the 1st defendant paras. 1 to 14 (both inclusive of the indorsement to the amended writ of summons) and paras. 4 to 13 of the amended statement of claim as well as prayers 1 to 14 be struck out.

(ii) summons in chambers dated 22 August 1989 (encl. 19) by the 3rd defendant under O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d) and O. 92 r. 4 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 for striking out the plaintiffs' amended writ and amended statement of claim.

(iii) summons in chambers dated 18 September 1989 (encl. 22) by the plaintiff under O. 29 of Rules of the High Court 1980 for interim injunction.

(iv) summons in chambers dated 2 November 1989 (encl. 39) by the plaintiffs under O. 20 r. 5 of the Rules of the High Court for re-amendments.

(v) summons in chambers dated 9 March 1990 (encl. 59) under O. 20 r. 5 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 by the plaintiffs for re-amendments.

(vi) summons in chambers dated 17 March 1990 (encl. 63) under O. 20 r. 8 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 by the 3rd defendant for additional grounds to be added to its earlier summons in chambers (encl. 19).

On 9 December 1989 Madam Jagjeet Kaur Sandhu, Counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew the summons in chambers (encl. 39) with liberty to file. Counsels for 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants did not object to the application