The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not override legal provisions regarding land alienation as stipulated in the Land Ordinance.

[1] There are two appeals before us which emanate from two civil actions at the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak in Tawau. In the first action, Suit No: TWU- 21-6-10-2012 (the first suit) three plaintiffs, Clarence Chiuh (the 1st plaintiff), Lawrence Chiuh (the 2nd plaintiff) and Hasri bin Budia (the 3rd plaintiff) sued the State Government of Sabah (the 1st defendant), the Director of Forestry Department (the 2nd defendant) and Sofien bin Mohd Saib (the 3rd defendant). In the first suit, the plaintiffs sought for the following declaratory reliefs in relation to three pieces of land:

"1. A declaration that the respective plaintiffs have the right and/or legitimate expectation to be issued with title deeds for the lands which they have applied and approved and/or have respectively planted oil palms thereon;

2. A declaration that the plaintiffs held their respective lands under native customary right and that they have permanent heritable and transferable rights to occupy the lands which they have respectively cultivated and planted oil palm thereon;

3. A declaration that the 2nd and 3rd defendants by their agents negligently destroyed the plaintiffs' oil palm or in breach of natural justice and/or ultra viresart 13 of Federal Constitution and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiffs respectively."

[2] In the other action, Suit No: TWU-21-2/2-2013 (second suit) the same 1st and 2nd plaintiffs only, sued the 1st defendant in the first suit (State Government of Sabah) and the Director of Lands and Surveys Department (the 2nd defendant). In this suit, the plaintiffs sought for the following declaratory reliefs, in relation to the same land:

"1. A declaration that the said land were duly alienated to the plaintiffs in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Land Ordinance by virtue of the said offers and the acceptance of the payment of 50% premium thereon thus by refusing to issue them an RSP to survey the said land, the defendants are in breach of the said offers;

2. A declaration that by virtue of and/or pursuant to the said offers, the plaintiffs have lawfully cultivated with legitimate expectation to be issued with title deeds by the defendants the said land and/or the plaintiffs are entitled to be paid damage thereon;

3. A declaration that by virtue of s 66 of the Land Ordinance the plaintiffs have lawfully purchased the said land from the said Ladja bin Abdul Lani and others under native customary rights and which they cannot be deprived of except in accordance with art 13, Federal Constitution."

[3] The two suits were obviously made in respect of the same three pieces of land. The learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) having found that there were some duplicities in both the actions because they relate to the same lands and substantially were based on the same facts, proceeded to hear the first suit, the decision of which was extended to the second suit.

[4] Both parties had agreed to invoke O 14A Rules of 2012 and O 33, to determine the liability of the defendants. The parties agreed on the facts and filed Statement of Agreed Facts as well as Agreed Bundle of Documents. The parties also filed agreed issues to be tried.

[5] The learned JC allowed the claim of the plaintiffs in prayers 1 and 2 in the first suit as prayed in the Statement of Claim. The learned JC further ordered for compensation to be paid to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and ordered for it to be assessed before the Registrar. The third prayer was dismissed because the learned JC ruled that the 3rd plaintiff had no locus standi to claim against the defendants since his land application had not been approved nor was he given any offer of land alienation similar to the 1st and the 2nd plaintiffs. According to the learned JC, the 3rd plaintiff therefore had no cause of action a