statement of claim

35. The Plaintiffs further aver that the impairing of their rights to livelihood bythe aforesaid acts and provisions of the law is unjust, unfair andunreasonable and destructive of their economic, cultural and socialsystem for their existence and therefore not in accordance with the law.36. Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiffs aver that the said timberlicence are subject to the rights of the Plaintiffs in or over the said NCRLand and therefore the Licensees cannot lawfully acquire any title orinterest therein.37. Further and in the alternative, the Plaintiffs aver that the issuance of thesaid timber Licence was an abuse of the fiduciary duty of the 2 nd and 3 rdDefendants to protect the Plaintiffs rights and/or title in and possession oftheir said NCR Land in that by its said act as aforesaid the 3rd Defendanthad failed to act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. The said timber licencewas therefore null and void.Particulars of fiduciary Duty relied on37.1 Although the law granted upon the 3 rd Defendant special powersand discretion to give preferential treatment to the Plaintiffs asregards the reservation or alienation of land in Sarawak, the 3 rdDefendant had failed, refused and/or neglected to exercise it toprotect the Plaintiffs said rights and/or title in and possession of thesaid NCR Land and/or to give them such preferential treatment.37.2 The 3 rd Defendant and/or its predecessors, upon acquiring and/orestablishing sovereignty over the State of Sarawak with theagreement and/or undertaking that the said sovereignty shall besubjected to the natives rights and/or title to and possession of theirland, the 2 nd and or the 3 rd Defendants are entrusted and obliged toact to protect the Plaintiffs said rights and/or title to and possessionof the said NCR Land.38. The Plaintiffs, in addition to the matters pleaded in the aforesaidparagraphs, further claim exemplary damages by reason of the conduct ofthe Defendants.Particulars of conduct38.1 The 3 rd Defendant, despite express knowledge of the Plaintiffsclaim over the said NCR Land and the continued objections andprotests by the Plaintiffs, have permitted the continuance and/orfailed to revoke the said timber licence of the 1 st Defendant.14