Chua J:

In the Court below Howard Cashin appeared for the plaintiff and Tan Cheng Guan appeared for the defendant. On 10 December 1965 the following judgment was delivered:

On 17 November 1965, the plaintiff in this case issued a specially indorsed writ claiming "for $11,911 being overtime pay payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for work done and services rendered by the plaintiff to the City Council of Singapore and to the defendants as an employee of the said City Council and as an employee of the defendants." Particulars of the overtime were also set out in the statement of claim endorsed on the writ.

The mandatory part of the writ is in this form. "The Honourable Dato' Wee Chong Jin, PMN, CJ of Singapore in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ..."

A copy of this writ was served on the defendants and they entered conditional appearance on 2 December 1965.

On 2 December 1965, the defendants issued a summons applying for the writ to be set aside for irregularity on the grounds:

(1) that the said writ was issued in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong instead of the name of His Excellency the Yang di- Pertuan Negara contrary to s. 7 of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 and s. 6 of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 and

(2) that the plaintiff's claim as pleaded therein is not such as may properly be the subject of a specially indorsed writ under O. III r. 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1932.

Taking the second ground of the defendants first. It was submitted that the statement of claim endorsed on the writ did not disclose a cause of action which comes within O. 111 r. 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934. I am of the view that there is no substance in this submission. The statement of claim discloses that it was a claim on a contract of service and was for a liquidated sum and is therefore a subject of a specially indorsed writ under O. 111 r. 5.

I now come to the first ground. By s. 7(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 "All summonses ... shall be issued and shall be expressed to be issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court issuing the same in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and shall be signed by a Registrar of such Court ..."

It is also necessary to mention the Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965, and the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965.

By an agreement dated 7 August 1965 (The Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965) made between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Singapore it was agreed that "Singapore shall cease to be a State of Malaysia on 9 August 1965, (hereinafter referred to as `Singapore Day') and shall become an independent and sovereign state separate from and independent of Malaysia." Article IV of the agreement provided that "The Government of Malaysia will take such steps as may be appropriate and available to them to secure the enactment by the Parliament of Malaysia of an Act in the form set out in Annex B to this agreement and will ensure that it is made operative as from Singapore Day, providing for the relinquishment of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Government of Malaysia in respect of Singapore so that the said sovereignty and jurisdiction shall on such relinquishment vest in the Government of Singapore in accordance with this agreement and the constitutional instruments annexed."

In accordance with the agreement of the 7 August, the Malaysian Parliament on 9 August 1965, enacted the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Malaysia Act, 1965) whereby Singapore ceased to be a State of Malaysia on 9 August 1965 (Singapore Day) and became an independent and sovereign State and nation separate from and independent of Malaysia.

The relevant sections of the Malaysia Act 1965, are ss. 6, 7 and 8.

Section 6 provides:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall on Singapore Day ceas