Low Hop Bing JCA:

Appeals

[1] Two related appeals have been lodged by the appellant ("the defendant") against two decisions of the Kuala Lumpur High Court. They are tabulated below:-

Appeal No:	Order Appealed Against
W-02-715-2001	Judgment for respondent ("plaintiff") in originating summons R2-24-5-2000 ("plaintiff's originating summons").
W-02-95-2001	Dismissal of appellant's (defendant's) application to strike out plaintiff's originating summons under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the High 1980.

A reference hereinafter to an order and a rule is a reference to that order and rule in the Rules of the High 1980.

Factual Background

[2] The events leading to these appeals evince a chequered history.

[3] In 1987, the plaintiff commenced Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No S6-22-208-87 ("the plaintiff's writ action") against the defendant seeking, inter alia:-

(1) a declaration that the defendant's termination of the plaintiff's employment as a traffic supervisor on 7 May 1987 was null and void ("prayer 1");

(2) a declaration that the plaintiff has obtained a pass in the Bahasa Malaysia paper at the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia examination of 1976 and should therefore be confirmed in the post as traffic supervisor ("prayer 2"); and

(3) damages ("prayer 3").

[4] Some seven years later, on 14 February 1994, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14 in the plaintiff's writ action.

[5] On 18 July 1994, the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining summary judgment in terms of prayers 1 and 3 only, against which the defendant has preferred no appeal.

[6] On 20 October 1994, the plaintiff obtained an order in terms of prayer 2. Against this order, the defendant filed an appeal vide Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No W-02-252-1994 ("CA 252 of 1994").

[7] On 24 October 1994, the deputy registrar of the High Court assessed damages under prayer 3 and awarded a sum of RM2,274,151.42. Against this assessment, the defendant filed an appeal to judge in chambers but this appeal was not heard. On 19 December 1994, the plaintiff garnished the assessed damages. Consequently, the defendant paid the aforesaid sum to the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed vide Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal No W-03-16-1994 ("CA 16 of 1994").

[8] On 26 February 1997, the Court of Appeal ("CA Coram 1") allowed defendant's appeal in CA 252 of 1994, and set aside the High Court order on plaintiff's prayer 2 and ordered an early trial of prayer 2 in the plaintiff's writ action ie, the declaration, that the plaintiff has obtained a pass in the Bahasa Malaysia paper at the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia examination of 1976 and should therefore be confirmed in the post as traffic supervisor, is a question which has to be tried by the High Court ("the triable issue").

[9] On 27 February 1997, in relation to CA 16 of 1994, CA Coram 1, by way of consequential order, set aside the deputy registrar's assessment of damages. On 17 March 1997, the plaintiff vide notice of motion No 08-18-1997 applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against this consequential order However, on 11 June 2002, the plaintiff withdrew his notice of motion which was then struck out.

[10] On 15 September 1997, the plaintiff filed summons in chambers seeking to set aside CA Coram 1's order given on 26 February 1997. On 2 March 2001, plaintiff's summons in chambers was dismissed with costs.

[12] On 29 August 2005, the defendant vide Federal Court notice of motion No W-08-40-2002 obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court, on the following question of law:-

Whether a Coram of the Court of Appeal (CA Coram 2) has jurisdiction to set aside an order made by an earlier Coram of the Court of Appeal (CA Coram 1)?

[13] That appeal, subsequently filed by the defenda