The principle of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of matters that have already been decided by a competent court.

[1] The suit filed by the plaintiffs is for these prayers:

(a) A declaration that the Minister of Finance, a body corporate under Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act 1957 is unconstitutional and is ultra vires of the Federal Constitution;

(a) (i) A declaration that the business activities and the services of the 1st Defendant are contrary to the Competition Act 2010 .

(b) An Injunction restraining the Defendants, its servants and or its agents from pursuing any form of execution, winding up and or bankruptcy proceedings against the Plaintiffs;

(c) A declaration that the 1st Defendant has breached its fiduciary duty;

(d) A declaration that the sale of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs non-performing accounts from the 1st Defendant to 2nd Defendant is illegal, null and void;

(e) A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant is illegal, null and void;

(f) An Order for stay in respect of Judgments dated 13 July 2016; 14 July 2016; 29 July 2016 and 8 November 2016 vide civil actions in Kula Lumpur High Court Civil No WA-22M-103-06/2016, WA-22M-111-06/2016, WA-22M-112-06/2016 and WA-22NNCC-223-06/2016;

(g) An Order to set aside the Judgments in Default of Appearance dated 13 July 2016, 14 July 2016 and 29 July 2016 obtained by the 2nd Defendant vide civil actions Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil No WA-22MM-103-06/2016.-22M- 111 -06/2016 and WA-22NCC-223-06/2016;

(h) An Order to set aside the Summary Judgment dated 8 November 2016 obtained by the 2nd Defendant vide civil actions in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil No WA-22M-112-06/2016;

(i) An Order that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs be allowed to make monthly payments to the 1st Defendant for the outstanding amount due as at the date of the default without any interest until realisation;

(j) General Damages;

(k) Interest;

(l) Costs; and

(m) Such further or reliefs deemed fit and just by this Honourable Court.

[2] There are 2 applications to strike out the suit filed herein:

a) Enclosure 15 filed by the 3rd defendant based upon O 18 r 19 (1)(a)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012;

b) Enclosure 17 filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants utilising O 18 r 19(1)(a)(b)(d) and O 18 r 6(5) of the Rules of 2012.

[3] The opposing counsels were allowed to file their written submissions added with the opportunity to make oral clarifications. The Court's decisions were delivered on 26 April 2019 with both applications being allowed with costs. The plaintiffs have filed 2 separate Notices of Appeal against the decisions with this Court now preparing the Grounds of Judgment for the 2 decisions made.