Suriyadi JCA (delivering judgment of the court)::

[1] Two appeals were set down for hearing before the panel, namely civil appeals W-02–1257 of 2005 and W-02–762 of 2005. Parties had agreed that these appeals be heard together. For easy reference let me state that these appeals had come about as the interveners (hereinafter referred to as the appellants), who were purchasers of the Desarina Condominium, had wanted to intervene in the proceedings between the respondents and another party (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).

[2] The appellants had filed a summons in chambers requesting for leave to intervene and some other prayers, inter alia, a stay order dated 14 August 2003 be set aside or discharged. That application was supported by an affidavit meant to represent all the interveners. The appellants were successful in that leave application but not the other prayers, amongst them, the setting aside of the said order of 14 August 2003. With the appellants and the respondent being equally unhappy they thus had respectively filed the abovementioned civil appeals of W-02–1257 of 2005 and W-02–762 of 2005. The appellants were dissatisfied because they had failed to obtain the setting aside order whilst the respondent being dissatisfied with the granting of the leave prayer.

[3] For easy reference I herewith reproduce the summons in chambers filed by the appellants:

[*325]

SUMMONS IN CHAMBERS

LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend before the judge in chambers on the 31

day of March 2005 at … am/pm for the hearing of an application on the

part of the abovenamed Applicants/Proposed Interveners for the

following orders:

(i) that the abovenamed applicants be granted leave to intervene in

the proceeding herein and be made a party hereto;

(ii) that pursuant to the leave granted herein, the abovenamed

applicants be at liberty to apply to this Honourable Court for

further directions and/or to vary and/or discharge the Order

dated 14 August 2003;

(iii) that the Order dated 14 August 2003 be set aside and/or

discharged;

(iv) that the abovenamed applicants be granted leave and to be allowed

to be heard on both the Summons in Chambers dated 23 October 2004

and 28 October 2004;

(v) that the costs of the application to be provided for; and

(vi) such further and/or other relief …

[4] One Dr William Lau Boon Kin had affirmed on 21 March 2005 the relevant supportive affidavit of the above summons in chambers on behalf of the appellants. Since the legality of his affidavit underwent some scrutiny by the panel, in the course of the hearing, I find it necessary to reproduce a portion of the impugned affidavit. It reads as follows:

I, DR WILLIAM LAU BOON KIN (NRIC NO 451201-08-5657) a Malaysian Citizen

of full age and residing at No 21, Lingkungan Desa, Taman Desa, 58100

Kuala Lumpur do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

1. I am a Management Consultant in AGS Management Consultants Sdn

Bhd and my spouse, Madam Tan Chin Heng is one of the

Applicants/Proposed Interveners in this action and she is also

the purchasers of the Desarina Condominium. I am duly authorized

by the abovenamed Applicants/Proposed Interveners to affirm this

affidavit on their behalf in support of the application filed

herein.

2. The facts as deposed to in this affidavit are within my knowledge

and/or obtained from records to which I have access save as

otherwise stated herein.

3. The Applicants/Proposed Interveners are the Purchasers of the

Desarina Condominium (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the

Purchasers’)…

9. I have caused a file search to be conducted at the Registry and

it appears that pursuant to an Order dated 14

Click Here to Read the rest of this document