Azahar Mohamed J:

[1] By way of a summons-in-chambers (encl. 39) dated 28 May 2006, and supported by an affidavit affirmed on 26 May 2006, the 1st and 2nd defendants sought, inter alia, for the following orders:

1. That the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out under O. 18 r. 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC) and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court on the following grounds:

(i) it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendants;

(ii) it is frivolous and vexatious;

(iii) it is an abuse of the process of the court;

2. This Honourable Court to determine the point of law ie, whether or not this Honorable Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants, as the plaintiff was an aggrieved body by the decision and cancellation of the Lease dated 17 May 1996 vide Presentation No. 517 of 1996 Jilid 1 Folio 95 in question by the Land Administrator, Land Office, Johor Bahru, Johor, under the provisions of s. 313 of the National Land Code 1965 (the NLC).

3. All further proceedings in this action against the 1st and 2nd defendants are stayed pursuant to s. 6 of the Arbitration Act 1952.

[2] According to the plaintiff's statement of claim, pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated 15 September 1994 the 1st defendant granted to the plaintiff a 35 year lease over her land held under Geran Mukim 266 Lot No. 588 Tempat Sungei Melayu Mukim Pulai, Johor Bahru ('the land') for the annual rental of RM100,000. The total rental of RM3.5 million for the 35 years had been paid upfront by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. The lease was duly registered in the Land Office. The lease was for the purpose of the plaintiff constructing a BP service station. Thereafter, the plaintiff appointed the 1st defendant as its dealer on the said BP service station pursuant to a Service Station License and Supply Agreement dated 15 December 1996. The agreement, which was for a one year term, was thereafter renewed on a year to year basis by the plaintiff until it was terminated by a notice given by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant on 21 February 2003, according to the plaintiff, due to the latter's default in paying the monthly license fees to the plaintiff pursuant thereto. The plaintiff said that the 1st defendant had refused to pay the monthly license fees to the plaintiff since January 2001. According to the plaintiff upon termination of the Agreement, the 1st defendant was obliged to vacate the land on which the BP service station was but she had refused to do so.

Thereafter, the 1st and 2nd defendants brought an action in JB High Court Civil Suit No. MT1-22-160-2003 against the plaintiff on 25 March 2003 claiming inter alia the following:

a) specific performance of an alleged oral agreement whereby the 2nd defendant ought to be appointed as BP's dealer in replacement of the 1st defendant pursuant to a new service station agreement;

b) an order that the 2nd defendant be permitted to carry on business as a BP dealer on the land for the period of the 35 year lease;

c) the return of all excess monies collected in breach of the law from the 1st and 2nd defendants since the date of the agreement;

d) damages.

[3] The 1st and 2nd defendants in that action applied for injunctions against the plaintiff from interfering with them carrying on business as BP's dealer on the service station but the application was dismissed with costs by the court on 31 December 2003. After that, by a letter dated 10 September 2003, which was sent to the plaintiff's solicitors on or about 24 September 2003, the 1st defendant alleged breaches of the lease against the plaintiff and purported to forfeit the plaintiff's lease over the land. The plaintiff had denied being in breach of the conditions of the lease. Next, according to the plaintiff its solicitors had conducted a land search on or about 3 December 2004 and found out, in late December 2004, that the lease had been cancelled by the