Abdul Razak J:

In the High Court at Kuantan the following judgment was delivered on 19 January 1978:

This is an application for an injunction to restrain the respondents from disallowing the applicant to remove certain railway sleepers which lay at Kuantan jetty.The applicant is the Government of Pakistan.The second and third respondents are residents in Singapore.The first respondent resides and deals in timber in Kuantan.The applicant alleged that an agreement was entered into between it and the second and third respondents for the purchase of sleepers.The second and third respondents had in turn made an agreement with the first respondent for the supply of the sleepers.It is alleged by the applicant that it had only received a part of the consignment of the goods contracted.It contended that the first respondent by his conduct had assented to the sale of his timber by the second and third respondents to it. The applicant had applied to the first respondent for delivery of the remaining consignment, but the first respondent said that all the timber had been delivered to the second and third respondents at the jetty in Kuantan.It alleged that the second and third respondents had received full payment for the total consignment.It was said that in oral conversation with the first respondent's Counsel the latter made it clear that the first respondent would not release the remaining sleepers unless payment was made by the second and third respondents for the balance of the purchase price.The applicant had asked the second and third respondents for delivery but they only replied that they would not be responsible for any damage caused by any delivery to it at this stage.The applicant said that the first respondent could not claim a lien on the balance of the unpaid price.It alleged that the first respondent's paid up capital was only $592,000 which was far less than the amount of the loss which the applicant would incur if its contract was not fulfilled.The applicant was seeking the injunction to mitigate his loss.

The first respondent in his affidavit said that he had no prior knowledge of the contract between the second and third respondents and the applicant.If at all, the contract between the second and third respondents and the applicant was governed by the Law of Pakistan.That the first respondent not being a party to this contract there was no privity of contract between the first respondent and the applicant.The first respondent could not therefore be made liable for the contract between the applicant and the second and third respondents.The first respondent alleged that under the contract made between him and the second and third respondents the first respondent was only responsible for arranging the shipment and transportation of cargo.He was never responsible for the transportation or shipment and as such could not be held responsible for matters arising out of the contract between the second and third respondents and the applicant.He also denied that he was responsible for doing all things necessary for effecting the necessary payment to be made by the applicant to the second and third respondents.He quoted one instance that the Bills of Lading for the consignment of the goods were never shown to him He said that the applicant's present predicament was brought about by his own carelessness or negligence in paying contrary to their agreement with the second and third respondents before the goods were actually received.The first respondent also said that there had been considerable delay in bringing this action which had induced him to change his status.The cause of action arose, if any, in 1975.He further stated that the Malaysian Timber Board itself had refused to intervene in the dispute between the first respondent and the applicant.The first respondent maintained that he had not assented to the contract between the applicant and the second and third respondents in the sale of the timber to the applicant.He s