JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar JCA:

[1] Two appeals were set down for hearing before the panel, namely civil appeals W-02-1257-2005 and W-02-762-2005. Parties had agreed that these appeals be heard together. For easy reference let me state that these appeals had come about as the interveners (hereinafter referred to as the appellants), who were purchasers of the Desarina Condominium, had wanted to intervene in the proceedings between the respondents and another party (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).

[2] The appellants had filed a summons-in-chambers requesting for leave to intervene and some other prayers inter alia a stay order dated 14 August 2003 be set aside or discharged. That application was supported by an affidavit meant to represent all the interveners. The appellants were successful in that leave application but not the other prayers, amongst them, the setting aside of the said order of 14 August 2003. With the appellants and the respondent being equally unhappy they thus had respectively filed the abovementioned civil appeals of W-02-1257-2005 and W-02-762-2005. The appellants were dissatisfied because they had failed to obtain the setting aside order whilst the respondent being dissatisfied with the granting of the leave prayer.

[3] For easy reference I herewith reproduce the summons in chambers filed by the appellants:

SUMMONS IN CHAMBERS

LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend before the Judge in Chambers on the 31 day of March 2005 at ... a.m./p.m. for the hearing of an application on the part of the abovenamed Applicants/Proposed Interveners for the following orders:

i) that the abovenamed Applicants be granted leave to intervene in the proceeding herein and be made a party hereto;

ii) that pursuant to the leave granted herein, the abovenamed Applicants be at liberty to apply to this Honourable Court for further directions and/or to vary and/or discharge the Order dated 14.8.2003;

iii) that the Order dated 14.8.2003 be set aside and/or discharged;

iv) that the abovenamed Applicants be granted leave and to be allowed to be heard on both the Summons In Chambers dated 23.10.2004 and 28.10.2004;

v) that the costs of the application to be provided for; and

vi) such further and/or other relief ...

[4] One Dr. William Lau Boon Kin had affirmed on 21 March 2005 the relevant supportive affidavit of the above summons-in-chambers on behalf of the appellants. Since the legality of his affidavit underwent some scrutiny by the panel, in the course of the hearing, I find it necessary to reproduce a portion of the impugned affidavit. It reads as follows:

I, DR. WILLIAM LAU BOON KIN (NRIC NO: 451201-08-5657) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at No. 21, Lingkungan Desa, Taman Desa, 58100 Kuala Lumpur do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

1. I am a Management Consultant in AGS Management Consultants Sdn Bhd and my spouse, Madam Tan Chin Heng is one of the Applicants/Proposed Interveners in this action and she is also the purchasers of the Desarina Condominium. I am duly authorized by the abovenamed Applicants/Proposed Interveners to affirm this affidavit on their behalf in support of the application filed herein.

2. The facts as deposed to in this affidavit are within my knowledge and/or obtained from records to which I have access save as otherwise stated herein.

3. The Applicants/Proposed Interveners are the Purchasers of the Desarina Condominium (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Purchasers) ...

9. I have caused a file search to be conducted at the Registry and it appears that pursuant to an Order dated 14.8.2003, the execution of the Winding-Up Order dated 7.2.2001 had been stayed pending the outcome of the following:

(a) appeal against the winding-up Order, and/or

(b) disposal of the Civil Suit No. S7-22-667-2000 whichever is later and the parties are at liberty to apply to the Court for further directions ...

14. Wherefore, I humbly pray for an order in terms of the application filed herein.

[5] The respondent had repli