Mahadev Shankar JCA:

[1] We dismissed this appeal against the summary judgment obtained by the respondent bank (the bank) against the appellants Our reasons now follow.

[2] On 6 September 1989 the bank agreed to provide a loan (the loan) of RM1.5 million to Campall Industries Sdn Bhd (Campall). On 15 October 1990 the bank agreed to provide a further loan by way of an overdraft facility (the facility) to the amount of RM1.6 million. In consideration of agreeing to provide the loan and the facility, the appellants executed one contract of guarantee in respect of the loan and another contract of guarantee in respect of the facility.

[3] Both contracts were in identical terms except as to the dates and the amount aforesaid. The liability of the appellants (the guarantors) were joint and several. The guarantors undertook to pay on demand all sums advanced to Campall together with the interest thereon.

[4] As at 1 March 1993 the bank had advanced to Campall under the loan and the facility the total sum of RM3,027,357.35. The interest on this principal sum as on that date was RM554,972.34. The cumulative amount was thus RM3,582,329.59 ("the debt").

[5] On 18 May 1993 the bank's solicit