Richard Malanjum J:

On 14 June 2002 I set aside an ex parteinjunction obtainedby the plaintiff against the defendants. In doing so I said this:

Having read the materials before me and having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the ex parteinjunction granted on 7.6.2002 should and is hereby set aside.

Though there are triable issues in this case there are several points which compel me to come to my decision as such. Briefly, they are, inter alia, the non-compliance by Plaintiffs to O. 29(1), (2A) of the RHC 1980; the balance of convenience tilts in not continuing with the ex parteinjunction; the availability of domestic remedies and section 18C of the Societies Act(as amended).

Thus, I grant prayers (1) and (2) of Encl. 22.

I will give my full grounds in the event of an appeal. Costs to the Defendants/Applicants to be taxed unless agreed.

By way of summons in chambers dated 7 June 2002 (encl. 6) accompaniedby a Certificate of Urgency (encl. 6) the plaintiffs had applied for an ex parteinjunction against the defendants seeking for the following orders, namely:

(1) An order that the Defendants, their servants(s) and/or agent(s) be restrained by an interlocutory injunction from exercising the role, power and authority of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs as the President and Secretary-General, respectively, of SNAP including, but not limiting to the convening of any Central Executive Meeting, National Council Meeting or Triennial General Assembly Meeting, giving of press releases on SNAP affairs and issuing of Notices in place of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs concerning SNAP;

(2) Further and/or alternatively, an order that the Defendants, their servant(s) and/or agent(s) be restrained by an interlocutory injunction from presiding in any Central Executive Meeting, National Council Meeting or Triennial General Assembly Meeting as concerns SNAP, in particular, the purported National Council Meeting which the 1st Defendant has decided to preside and hold on 09.06.2002 ("the N.C. meeting"), until after the trial of this action or until further Order of Court;

(3) An order for costs of this application; and

(4) Such further or other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and just.

The application was heard by the learned Judicial Commissioneron the same date and the orders as prayed for were granted. The return date was26 June 2002. The notes of proceeding for that hearing read:

7th JUNE 2002 (FRIDAY)

Mr. Albert Tang and Mr. Collin Jarraw for plaintiff

Enclosure (6)

Certificate of urgency is enclosure (5).

Sgd. (Dato' Zakaria bin Sam)

Mr. Albert

An ex parteApplication for injunction:

(i) Whether the Deputy President can call for a CEC meeting?

(ii) Whether he called the National Council Meeting on 9.6.2002?

(iii) The National Council Meeting does not specify the agenda of the meeting except to say to discuss the current crisis of the party but crisis not identified,

(iv) Indication from press report that the National Council Meeting is to topple or trying to topple the President or to resign.

- is this one of the agenda or the possibility it would cause unruly meeting due to absence of agenda. It is not a properly organised meeting.

(v) It may result in great harm to the party and the plaintiffs.

If injunction is granted the effect is to maintain status quountil the matter is properly ventilated in the hearing proper. (Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor b. Abdullah & Ors[1995] 1 CLJ 293.)

Sgd. (Dato' Zakaria bin Sam)

Court:

Order in Term.

Adjourned to 26.6.2002 at 10.00 a.m.

Sgd. (Dato' Zakaria bin Sam).

On 12 June 2002 the defendants filed in an application by wayof summons in chambers (encl. 22) accompanied by a Certificate of Urgency (encl.20) to set aside the ex parteorder. To save time I therefore advanced thereturn date of encl. 6 to coincide with the hearing of encl. 22.

For encl. 6 it was supported by the affidavits of 1st plaintiffDatuk James Wong Kim Min affirmed on 6 June 2002 (encl. 7) (Wo