The ruling establishes that amendments to pleadings can be refused if deemed tactical and not bona fide, especially if issues raised are groundless.

[1] There are two applications before this Court ie The Plaintiff's application to strike out the Defendant's Defence (Encl 6) and the Defendants' application for leave to amend the Defence (Encl 12).

[2] On the 3 December 2015, I allowed Enclosure 6 and dismissed Enclosure 12. The Defendants appealed against my decision for both enclosures.

The Plaintiff's Striking Out Application

[3] The Plaintiff's application to strike out the Defence is based on the grounds that the Defendants' Defence discloses no reasonable defence and it is frivolous, vexatious and/or otherwise an abuse of the process of Court under O 18 r 19 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012").

[4] In support of this application, the Plaintiff had filed the following affidavits:-

(i) Affidavit in Support of Jimi bin Drahman affirmed on 23 April 2015 [Enclosure 7].

(ii) Affidavit in Reply of Jimi bin Drahman affirmed on 2 July 2015 [Enclosure 14].

[5] The Defendants have filed the affidavit in opposition as follows:

(i) Affidavit of Leonard Martin anak Uneng affirmed on 27 May 2015 [Encl 10].

(ii) Supplementary Affidavit of Leonard Martin anak Uneng affirmed on 12 June 2015 [Encl 11].

The Facts

[6] The Plaintiff's action herein against the Defendants is for banking facilities ie an Overdraft Facility of RM500,000.00 (under Account No 511074508082) ("the OD Facility") and a Bank Guarantee - Performance Bond Facility of RM2,175,000.00 ("the BG-PB Facility") granted to the 1st Defendant and guaranteed by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants under the Joint and Several Guarantee executed by them on 26 November 2008 ("Letter of Guarantee dated 26 November 2008") for the purpose and subject to the terms and conditions as stated in the Letters of Offer, the Supplementary Letters of Offer and the Facilities Agreements.

[7] It is undisputed facts that the facilities under the BG-PB Facility had been utilized where the Plaintiff had made payments to the Housing Ministry ("the beneficiary") upon their demand on 22 December 2011 and subsequently the said sum had been debited into the 1st Defendant's OD Facility Account No 511074508082.

[8] The 1st Defendant has the obligation to repay the amount paid by the Plaintiff under the BG-PB Facility but has defaulted in the repayment. The total outstanding balance under the OD Facility as at 31 October 2014 is RM2,312,232.08.

[9] By a letter of demand dated 11 November 2014, the Plaintiff through Messrs Reddi & Co, Advocates demanded from the 1st Defendant the sum of RM2,312,232.08 as at 31 October 2014 being the amount outstanding under the OD Facility.

[10] By a letter of demand dated 11 November 2014, the Plaintiff through Messrs Reddi & Co, Advocates demanded from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants as guarantors the sum of RM2,312,232.08 as at 31 October 2014 being the amount outstanding under the OD Facility. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants have failed, refused and/or neglected to pay the amount demanded.

The Issues Raised By The Defendants

[11] In opposing the Plaintiff's application, the Defendants raised the following issues:

(i) Plaintiff had unilaterally debited into the 1st Defendant's OD Facility account without the consent and knowledge of the 1st Defendant.

(ii) The claim of the sum of RM2,175,000.00 under the BG-PB Facility by the Housing Ministry is unlawful.

(iii) The Letter of Guarantee dated 26 November 2008 does not apply to the BG-PB Facility and there is no valid consideration for the Letter of Guarantee and on that basis, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not liable for the amount outstanding under the BG-PB Facility.

The Findings Of The Court

[12] It is my view that the issues raised by the Defendants are not bona fide that meri