[1] The question upon which leave was granted to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal in respect of the matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, reads:

"Whether an agreement to provide services to influence the decision of a public decision maker to award a contract is a contract opposed to public policy as defined under s 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950 and [is] therefore void?"

[2] The background facts could be summarised as follows. Evidently, there was a plan by the Government of Malaysia for a bridge to replace the Johore- Singapore causeway (hereinafter referred to as the bridge project), and that the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister's Department, by its letter dated 25 June 1998, awarded, in principle, the execution of the bridge project to one Suria Kalbu Sdn Bhd in which the 2nd appellant had an equity of 60%. Hitherto, the appellants had requested the respondent "to render his services to procure and secure the award" of the execution of the project from the Government of Malaysia", for which services the appellants had agreed to pay RM20 million to the respondent. Those "facts" appeared in the f