Steve Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak):

The Issues

There are three motions before us. The first motion dated 23 February 2001 was filed by the applicant seeking to set aside the judgment of the Federal Court dated 12 July 2000. The second motion dated 30 March 2001 was filed by the respondent seeking to strike out the applicant's first motion on grounds of irregularities. The third motion dated 4 April 2001 was filed by the applicant seeking to amend the first motion. Because of the nature of the motions filed by the parties concerned, we felt it appropriate to deal with the second motion first. After hearing arguments, we dismissed the second motion for insufficient merit.

Given the conclusion we take on the second motion, and for the reasons succinctly stated by our learned sister Siti Norma Yaakob HMP, we find no difficulty in granting the third motion filed by the applicant but with cost to the respondent. This of course leaves us with the main motion filed by the applicant, which, as I have said, seeks to set aside the judgment of the Federal Court dated 12 July 2000. Essentially, two grounds have been advanced namely:

(1) that the judgment was invalid as it was delivered by