Petitioner Advocates:Mohd Radzi Yatiman,Nurul Muhaniza Hanafi,Nadia Ahmad Suhaidin ,Respondent Advocate: Muhammad Adam Abdullah,Adlina Atikah Zainal Abidin

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the scope of the payment guarantee agreement is limited to the guarantee of concession proceeds and certain payments explicitly specified within the agreement. The court held that the guarantee does not extend to cover the entire financing liabilities or obligations under the facility agreements. The key reasoning was that the contractual language, when interpreted in its natural and ordinary meaning, clearly limits the guarantee to payments arising from the concession agreement, specifically the concession proceeds, and does not encompass Redha's liabilities under the broader facility agreements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the construction of the contract must be based on the language of the written document itself, without reliance on extrinsic or oral evidence, as contract interpretation is a matter of law (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court also reasoned that the plaintiff's claim for the entire outstanding amount was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the rights and liabilities concerning the same issues had already been fully adjudicated in prior proceedings, and allowing a double claim would result in unjust enrichment (!) (!) .

In summary, the court's decision was grounded on the contractual language, the proper method of contract interpretation, and the principle that issues already adjudicated cannot be relitigated, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim was outside the scope of the guarantee and was barred by res judicata.