JUDGMENT

Ramly Ali JCA:

[1] The plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant is premised on a breach of friendly loans for a sum of RM468,500 claimed to have been given to the 1st defendant over a period between July 2000 and February 2002 pursuant to several written agreements dated 30 June 2000, 5 December 2000 and 2 February 2002 and oral agreement between them. On top of that the plaintiff also claimed for interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 23 December 2004 until full satisfaction.

[2] The first loan agreement is dated 30 June 2000 whereby the plaintiff on request of the 1st defendant, had given a friendly loan of RM100,000 to the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant had agreed to repay the said loan within (90) days from the date of the said first agreement.

[3] The second loan agreement between the same parties is dated 5 December 2000 whereby, the plaintiff again, on request of the 1st defendant had given another friendly loan of RM300,000 to the 1st defendant. This time the 1st defendant had agreed to repay the said loan within (6) months from the date of the said second agreement. For this second loan, the 2nd defendant had executed a personal guarantee to guarantee the due repayment of the said second loan by the 1st defendant as stipulated in the second agreement.

[4] The third loan of RM28,500 was given by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant sometime in June 2001 on an oral request made by the 1st defendant, whereby the 1st defendant had agreed to repay the amount within three months from June 2001.

[5] Subsequent to that the 1st defendant had orally requested for another loan from the plaintiff for a sum of RM40,000. This fourth loan was given by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant sometimes in February 2002. For this loan the 1st defendant promised to repay it within three months from February 2002.

[6] Altogether the total amount of friendly loan given by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant was RM468,500. To this effect, the same parties had entered into another agreement dated 2 February 2002 whereby the 1st defendant had acknowledged having taken from the plaintiff the said loan amounting to RM468,500 during the period between July 2000 and February 2002 and had agreed to pay the loan in full.

[7] However, the 1st defendant had failed to repay the said loan as agreed earlier. Relevant notices of demand were issued by the plaintiff's solicitors to the 1st and 2nd defendants demanding for repayment of the said loan. Both the 1st and 2nd defendants have failed to comply with the said notices of demand.

[8] The plaintiff filed his writ and statement of claim against both the defendants on 4 March 2005. On 31 May 2005 the plaintiff filed an application to enter judgment under O. 27 r. 3, of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC 1980) against the 1st defendant.

[9] A fter an exchange of affidavits between the parties, the learned senior assistant registrar (SAR) allowed the plaintiff's application under O. 27 r. 3 of RHC 1980 on 14 July 2006. Being dissatisfied with the learned SAR's decision, the 1st defendant appealed to the judge in chambers. On 29 October 2007, the learned Judicial Commissioner dismissed the 1st defendant's appeal with costs. Hence the present appeal before this Court.

[10] The 1st defendant (the appellant in this appeal) in his defence denied borrowing any money from the plaintiff. His contention is that the monies were for the plaintiff's investment in the 1st defendant's company, namely Voiceworkz Sdn Bhd and that parties were actually bound by the terms of an oral collateral agreement between them.

[11] The 1st defendant alleged that it was orally agreed in principle between them that the plaintiff would inject capital as and when required by the said company. The 1st defendant claimed that the various loan agreements executed by him and the plaintiff were mere facade and that the plaintiff's attempt to enforce those loan agreements by filing the suit was done in bad faith ie, seeking to recover investme