RULING

Clement Skinner J:

This is the hearing of the plaintiff's application for summary judgment under O 14 Rules of the High 1980 ('the RHC').

Before the merits of the substantive application could be argued, the defendants raised two preliminary issues. They are:

(i) that the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against them ('the first issue');

and

(ii) there was delay in filing the O 14 application ('the second issue').

The plaintiff's claim is for the sum of RM11,691,343.17 as at 19th March 2000 together with interest thereon at the rate of 3.5% per annum on monthly rests above the plaintiff's Base Lending Rate until date of full and final payment. This is set out in paras 13 and 14 of the statement of claim. The basis of the claim is stated in paras 3 and 4 of the statement of claim where it is pleaded that by a letter of offer dated 22nd June 1995 and at the request of the defendants, the plaintiff granted the 1st defendant banking facilities in the form of a Standby Letter of Credit in the sum of US$3 million ('the banking facility') on the terms and conditions set out therein which the 1st defendant duly accepted. It is also pleaded that the banking facility was reviewed and renewed from time to time by a series of letters of offer culminating in the letter of offer dated 1st December 1998 ('the last accepted letter of offer') which were duly accepted by the 1st defendant. In para 6 of the statement of claim it is pleaded that in consideration of the plaintiff granting and as a term of the granting of the banking facility to the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant by a Limited Guarantee dated 23rd May 1995 and another Limited Guarantee dated 3rd December 1998 and the 3rd defendant by a Limited Guarantee dated 23rd May 1995 respectively agreed to pay to the plaintiff on demand all sums of money which shall be due and owing from the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. In para 8 of the statement of claim it is pleaded that the 1st defendant defaulted in repayment of the facility and in para 9 it is pleaded that the granting of the banking facility is subject to the plaintiff's overriding right of repayment on demand. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. Paragraph 13 of the statement of claim sets out the particulars of the amount outstanding claimed by the plaintiff.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants have filed their defence to the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff has filed its reply to the defences filed.

In raising the first issue, the defendants complain that the plaintiff has merely pleaded the legal result or legal consequences but has not pleaded the material facts which entitles it to make the claim here in. They say that the plaintiff's statement of claim must be held to be bad if even one material fact is omitted. In support of what they say, counsel for the defendants referred me to 4 cases. They were Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd v. Mak Kok (unreported K.L. High Court Suit No. D1-23-4229-86). In that case Shaik Daud J (as he then was) dismissed the plaintiff's O 14 application on the grounds that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, saying:

"The purpose of O 14 is to enable a plaintiff to obtain summary judgment without trial if he can prove his claim clearly.....

Although an O 14 application would always be supported by an affidavit, but the courts always rely on the statement of claim before they either allow or refuse an O 14 application. If therefore, the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action or discloses insufficient facts to determine the cause of action, no amount of affidavit can remedy this..... The plaintiff's claim must stand or fall on what he has pleaded in the statement of claim and nowhere else";

The second case was Citibank NA v. Lee Chew Keok & Anor (unreported K.L. High Court Suit No. D3-23-7277-87) where V.C. George J (as he then was) also dismissed an O 14 application on the grounds t