The court has inherent jurisdiction to extend ex parte injunctions and clarify inter partes hearing procedures under the Rules of High Court.

By way of an ex parte summons in chambers dated 2 May 2000, the plaintiff prayed for the following orders:

(1) An order of injunction restraining purported agents and or servants of the defendants howsoever from entering into the said camp namely Camp KM63, Nanga Gaat, Kapit, Sarawak until trial of this action; (2) An order that the purported agents and or servants of the defendants be restrained howsoever from interfering, tampering, damaging, defacing, removing the various equipments and machineries in the possession, custody, care and or use of the plaintiffs until the trial of this action;

(3) Should the honourable court grant the above prayers (1) and (2), an inter partes hearing be fixed and heard within the period of 14 days thereof;

(4) Costs.

On 2 May 2000, I granted order in terms of the ex parte order. And a return date was given on 15 May 2000 for a hearing on an inter partes basis.

On 15 May 2000, on the day fixed for the hearing of the inter partes argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that he was served with various affidavits on 15 May 2000. The documents are very thick and voluminous and he required time to file affidavits in reply. As such, he asked for an adjournment and submitted that the court has inherent iurisdiction to extend time for the hearing of the inter partes argument. He requested the court to grant a holding over injunction until the disposal of the inter partes hearing.

The learned counsel for the 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection that the affidavit served on her client does not comply with O. 41 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 that the jurat is defective in that the name of the deponent is given as the language. The language that it was translated was not stated. She also submitted that application before the court is the application upon which the ex parte injunction was obtained. Once an order is given upon an application then that application is extinguished. If the plaintiff wishes to have an inter partes application then a fresh application must be made. There has been no inter partes application made.

The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant informed the court they have filed an affidavit affirmed by Yee Sew and served a copy on the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He submitted that the application which was served on his client was in fact an ex parte application which has been heard and disposed with the court granting the injunction in the terms as stated in the sealed copy of the court order dated 2 May 2000. Nothing in the court order directed and ordered that this application dated 2 May 2000 be heard inter partes.

Under O. 29 r. 1(2B) of the RHC, the life span of an ex parte injunction is two weeks. So a new application has to be filed.

I shall now deal with the matter before me.

I have perused the court copy of the affidavit of Sabu bin Choching affirmed on 2 May 2000. The jurat reads "read over and explained to Sabu bin Choching in Bahasa Melayu by Justine Balang Pako ... Sgd: Commissioner for Oaths." So the jurat is not defective and has complied with Order 41 of the RHC. Further by the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant filing affidavits in opposition and/or reply to the said affidavit of Sabu bin Choching without stating their objections in their affidavits have waived the right to raise the objection. As such, I dismiss the preliminary objection.

In Lim Nyook Yin v. Ultratech Sdn Bhd & Anor[1995]1CLJ209 His Lordship Abdul Malik Ishak J at p. 503 said:

The proposition that Mr. A Selvanathan has no right to apply for a return date whilst making an application for an ex parte interim iniunction under O. 29 r. 1(2B) of the RHC and, consequently, that the court has no power to fix a return date, is entirely without merit. The wor