Syed Agil SCJ:

We allowed this appeal on 17 July 1987 with the order that each party bear its own costs and promised to give our reasons later. We do so now.

The appeal arose from the decision of V.C. George J in the High Court Kuala Lumpur who held that the High Court has jurisdiction to suspend the effect of an ex parte interim injunction granted on 20 November 1986 pending the hearing of an application to have it set aside before Zakaria J. The said injunction at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant restrained Emtex Corporation Berhad (the 11th respondent) and its directors viz. the first to the eighth respondents respectively from functioning or performing any of the duties of directors or officers of the company and to refrain from completing and proceeding with the sale and purchase of shares of the ninth respondent by the eleventh respondent from the tenth respondent. It also appointed four new directors named therein to carry out the functions and duties of the board of directors and of the eleventh respondent until after the trial of the action. The former directors and the officers of the company were directed to hand over forthwith all correspondence, books of accounts and other relevant documents, belonging to the eleventh respondent to the four new directors who were required to prepare and lodge with the SAR monthly reports of and concerning the affairs of the eleventh respondent. The respondents or any of them were at liberty to apply to set aside or vary the court order upon summons inter partes served on the plaintiff/appellant or its solicitors not later than fourteen clear days from the return date of such inter partes summons. The respondents accordingly applied to have the injunction set aside but an early date could not be fixed for hearing until the second half of January 1987. Because of that, the respondents by summons-in-chambers dated 25 November 1986 applied to have the effect of the orders made by Zakaria J be stayed pending the hearing of the application to set it aside. The learned Judge heard the application at short notice but fell ill in the course of hearing it. V.C. George J took over and heard the said application. What the counsel for the respondents wanted, as noted by the learned Judge was to suspend the effect of the injunction pending hearing of the application to set aside which they hoped would be heard by Justice Dr. Zakaria Yatim in January.

On 22 November 1986 two days after the order of interim injunction the respondents obtained an ex parte order before the same Judge in chambers restraining the plaintiff/appellant whether by itself or its servants or agents from entering the premises of the eleventh respondent until the trial of the action or until the disposal of the application to set aside the order dated 20 November 1986.

There appeared to be two conflicting orders of injunction and the impression that V.C. George J had in perusing the documents before him was that the order dated 22 November 1986 tended to water down the effect of the order of 20 November 1986. In assessing the real position he continued:

In the event, going by the documents before me, it seems to me the situation obtaining is most unsatisfactory. On the one hand, you have the original Board of Directors restrained from functioning as directors or officers of the company. On the other hand you have the 4 new directors appointed by the Court to take over and run the company. Yet there is the situation that they may not enter into the premises of the company. At best the whole situation is shrouded in uncertainty.

He then made an order suspending the effect of all the orders made on 20 November 1986 except for the first part which restrained the eleventh respondent whether by itself or by its servants or agents from completing, implementing or proceeding with the sale and purchase of shares of the ninth respondent from the tenth respondent until after the trial of the action. As a result the effe