Siti Norma Yaakob JCA:

[1] This appeal arose from the refusal of the High Court to grant an order of certiorari to the appellant to quash the award of the 2nd respondent that upheld the appellant's dismissal from the employment of the 1st respondent to be for just cause or excuse. However before us, the 1st respondent raised two preliminary issues namely non-compliance by the appellant with:

(1) Practice Direction No 3 of 1992 and

(2) Rules 18(4)(c) and 18(6) of the Rules of the of Appeal 1994 ("the Rules").

[2] We had agreed with the submissions of Mr TJ Su, counsel for the 1st respondent and upheld the preliminary objections but to appreciate them, we need to go back and trace all the proceedings that were commenced by the appellant in the courts below.

[3] In 1987, following a domestic enquiry held by the 1st respondent on 4 June of that year, the appellant was informed by letter bearing the same date, that he had been dismissed from his employment as a credit control officer with the 1st respondent on three founded charges of:

(1) persistently contravening credit control procedures and instructions.

(2) acting without authority by instructing Messrs CS Tang & Co, a firm of solicitors, to cease legal action against a debtor of the 1st respondent.

(3) making a false mileage claim based on a rate that he was not entitled to.

[4] In disputing his dismissal, the appellant proceeded to make representations to the Industrial Relations Office which referred the matter to the 2nd respondent and on 31 October 1990, by its Award No 291 of 1990, the 2nd respondent upheld the dismissal and confirmed that it was for just cause or excuse.

[5] Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a judicial review action in the High Court in Originating Motion R8-25-129-90 ("the first action") and obtained leave ex parte to apply for an order for certiorari to quash the award of the 2nd respondent.

[6] On 13 June 1991, the first action was dismissed with costs on the preliminary objection that the appellant's statement pursuant to O 55 r 1(2) of the Rules of the High 1980, did not state the relief sought by him.

[7] The appellant did not appeal against this order but instead filed a fresh action Originating Motion R8-25-83-91 ("the second action") and by a notice of motion dated 20 June 1991, the appellant prayed for an extension of time to apply once again for leave to apply for an order for certiorari and for such leave itself.

[8] The application for extension of time was granted on 13 January 1994, as well as leave to apply for an order of certiorari but costs was ordered against the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent.

[9] The 1st respondent pursued the matter further to then Supreme Court but its appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs on 19 September 1995.

[10] Back in the High Court, the second action was heard on 25 September 1996, when the 1st respondent objected to the admissibility of two further affidavits filed by the appellant without leave of Court. The Court allowed the appellant to withdraw the two further affidavits with liberty to file for leave to file further affidavits. The appellant did just that by way of a notice of motion dated 21 October 1996, for leave to file a further affidavit and to use certain exhs therein during the hearing of the second action.

[11] The notice of motion was struck off with costs on 28 April 1997, as counsel for the appellant failed to appear at the hearing. The appellant then applied to reinstate the notice of motion and this was granted on 10 June 1997, and costs of RM500 was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent.

[12] At the hearing of the reinstated notice of motion on 17 September 1997, an order was made allowing the appellant to use three exhs identified as CCY18 (including CCY18A, CCY18B and CCY18C), CCY19 and CCY20 to be used at the hearing of the second action which was fixed for 7 January 1999, with directions that the parties file their respective written submissions and bundle of author