Richard Malanjum J:

Introduction

There are four actions before me all commenced by way of originating summons. They are O.S. No. S24-58 of 1999 (the first action), O.S. No. S24-59 of 1999 (the second action), O.S. No. S24-31 of 2000 (the third action) and O.S. No. S24-47 of 2000 (the fourth action).

In all these actions the reliefs sought for by the respective plaintiffs are identical, to wit, verbatim:

1. That the Power of Attorney dated the 11th day of November 1991 be declared null and void.

2. That all consequential acts made or purported to be made or carried in pursuant to the abovesaid Power of Attorney be declared null and void and of no consequence.

3. That the Director of the Lands and Surveys Department do cancel the land titles documents issued purportedly pursuant to the said Power of Attorney.

4. That the Defendant do pay all costs of this Application.

5. Any other directions that the Court may deem fit.

The parties have agreed for these actions to be heard jointly since the crucial issues are intertwined.

For ease of reference in this judgment where reference is made to more than one plaintiff they will collectively be referred to as 'the plaintiffs'but individually by their respective first names. The dead persons whose Estates are represented by the plaintiffs in the last two actions will be referred to as the deceased. The same applies to the various defendants but individually will be referred to as follows:

(i) George Justine @ Ghani Affandi the 1st defendant in all the actions and as the 'fourth party'in the second action, as 'George Justine @ Ghani Affandi';

(ii) Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. the 2nd defendant and having applied as intervener as well in the first and second action, as 'Jasutera Sdn. Bhd.'; and

(iii) Campo Sdn. Bhd. the third party as 'Campo Sdn. Bhd'.

The action against HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd. was discontinued soon after the commencement of the hearing.

Initially the first and second actions were heard and arguments concluded. However subsequent applications were made to intervene by Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. These were not objected to by the plaintiffs provided that arguments by Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. had to be made in the third action and any decision of the court in the third action would be binding on Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. in the first two actions. Learned counsel for Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. agreed to the term and learned counsel for George Justine @ Ghani Affandi did not object to the agreement. Further, third party notices were issued to the third party as well as to the fourth party. And it was noted by the court that any order made in relation to such applications in any of the actions would have binding effect on the other actions.

Application was also made by learned counsel for the plaintiffs to have the third and fourth actions heard jointly. And he further suggested that the parties should come to a set of agreed facts and issues to be tried and thereafter submissions to be made by the respective counsel. That mode of proceeding was accepted.

Although it was suggested, albeit feebly, that these actions should be converted to writ actions, the parties proceeded relying on the respective affidavits filed in presenting their arguments. In any event I was not persuaded in the course of hearing that these actions should be converted to writ actions.

I also noted that in their respective letters dated 20 August 2002 the solicitors for the parties expressed the following agreement as follows:

(a) from the solicitors of the plaintiffs 'Insofar as the defendants and third party are concerned in the event of the High Court ruling in favour of the plaintiffs, the issue of liability quantum of damages and indemnity needs to be clarified eg, who shall assess the quantum ... This direction ... can be given in Yang Ariff's ruling/judgment';

(b) from the solicitors for Jasutera Sdn. Bhd. and Campo Sdn. Bhd. 'that in the event that His Lordship makes his ruling, there will be further directions to be made r