Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

[1] By way of a notice of motion dated 12 May 2009 as seen in encl. 134a, the applicant seeks an order that all the previous orders of this court be deemed "irregular" and be "set aside" The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant affirmed on 12 May 2009 together with an additional affidavit that was affirmed on 6 July 2009 followed by another affidavit that was affirmed by the applicant on 21 August 2009.

[2] In response thereto, the respondent filed an affidavit in reply through Puan Ina Anzalna Shamsuddin that was affirmed on 7 July 2009.

[3] We have perused through all the affidavits as alluded to above with a fine tooth comb and we must categorically say that the application in encl. 134a is wrong in law and is an abuse of the process of the court and must be struck out in limine . Baseless and unsubstantiated allegations were advanced in the applicant's affidavits in an attempt to justify the orders sought for in encl. 134a.

[4] We take note that the background facts to this application are quite chequered. The applicant had on eight previous occasions filed eight separate applications to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006. All the eight review applications were dismissed by eight different panels of this court unanimously. It is clear as crystal that the present application in encl. 134a is another attempt by the applicant to re-open the appeal and to re-litigate the same.

[5] It would be ideal, at this juncture, to set out the chronological sequence of the applicant's previous applications to this court:

(a) on 5 December 2006, the court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application to adduce further evidence as well as the applicant's appeal against the decision of the High court dated 4 May 2005;

(b) on 8 December 2006, the applicant filed a notice of motion ("the first review application") to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and at the hearing of the first review application on 8 January 2007, the applicant voluntarily withdrew his application and the court of Appeal forthwith dismissed it;

(c) on 11 January 2007, the applicant again filed a second notice of motion ("the second review application") and sought to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and the court of Appeal dismissed with costs the second review application on 13 February 2007;

(d) it is germane to mention that during the hearing of the second review application on 13 February 2007 before another panel of this court, the applicant was advised to file an application for leave to appeal to the Federal court; and, in fact, Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin JCA (now FCJ) who sat on that panel reminded the applicant that another panel of this court that sat on 8 January 2007 had advised him to file an application for leave to appeal to the Federal court;

(e) on 27 February 2007, the applicant filed a third notice of motion ("the third review application") to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and it was also dismissed with costs by the court of Appeal on 21 May 2007;

(f) on 16 November 2007, the applicant filed a fourth notice of motion ("the fourth review application") to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and the court of Appeal on 5 December 2007 dismissed with costs the fourth review application;

(g) on 18 February 2008, the applicant filed a fifth notice of motion ("the fifth review application") to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and the court of Appeal on 14 April 2008 dismissed with costs the fifth review application;

(h) undaunted, the applicant filed on 2 July 2008 the sixth notice of motion ("the sixth review application") to review the decision of the court of Appeal dated 5 December 2006 and, again, it was dismissed with costs by the court of Appeal on 14 October 2008;

(i) yet again, the applicant filed his seventh notice of motion