Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] On 15 June 2004, the High Court of Penang entered judgment against the instant appellant for the following amounts:

(a) the sum of RM6,055,667.15 (Ringgit Malaysia Six Million Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven and Fifteen Sen only);

(b) interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum on monthly rest in respect of the first RM5,000,000 and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on monthly rest in respect of the sums above RM5,000,000 starting from 1 October 1988 until the date of filing of this action, that is 12 January 1989; and

(c) interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of RM6,055,667.15 starting from 13 January 1989 until the date of full settlement.

Costs were also awarded. The appellant appealed against that judgment to us. On Monday, 21 April 2008, this court was moved on an application for a stay of the above judgment. Upon being informed that the record of appeal has been filed since 2004, we directed that the appeal proper to be heard today and adjourned the motion for stay be taken together with the appeal. The appeal now having been fully argued on its merits, the motion is rendered academic. We accordingly dismiss it with no order as to costs.

[3] A number of grounds were taken in the court below to resist the claim taken by the respondent against the appellant. Only two of these have been pursued in the appeal this morning. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on the points taken, it is necessary to briefly recite the factual background against which this appeal rests.

[4] On 11 November 1986, Ban Hin Lee Bank Berhad lent a sum of RM5,000,000 to a company called Island Hill Sdn. Bhd. According to the bank's letter of offer dated 18 September 1986, the rate of interest to be charged was 3.25% above the bank's base lending rate. It was also a condition of the loan that if the approved limit of RM5,000,000 is exceeded, penalty interest at the rate of 6.75% above the bank's base lending rate would be charged. The aforesaid loan was secured, inter alia, by a guarantee executed by the appellant herein dated 11 November 1986. Later, the borrower company having made default, the bank brought an action to recover all sums due to it from both the borrower and the appellant. Later still, due to the economic downturn that took place in 1997, the securities taken by the bank were vested in the instant respondent by statute, namely the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad Act 1998. The bank moved for summary judgment and succeded at first instance against both the borrower company and the instant appellant. However, this court on an appeal by the appellant set aside the summary judgment entered against him, dismissed the summons for judgment and gave him unconditional leave to defend. The action then proceeded to trial. On the first day of trial, the title to the action and the pleadings were amended to reflect the vesting that had taken place in the respondent. After hearing witnesses called by both sides and after a consideration of the documentary evidence produced before him, the learned judge who heard the action entered judgment against the appellant in the terms already adverted to. So much for the facts. We now turn to address the two submissions advanced in support of this appeal.

[5] The first argument is that the claim should have been dismissed by the learned judge because the respondent had failed to prove the sums claimed by it. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the well-settled principle that a litigant who asserts must prove. In support of his case, the appellant relies on the decision of this court in United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v. Chen Yin Khee & Anor [2004] 4 CLJ 385. There, the High Court dismissed the bank's claim on the ground that the bank had failed to prove the guarantor's liability to it. It is clear from the report of the judgment that the bank in that case had produced only scanty and