PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

[1] By notice dated 2 November 2006, the learned counsel for the respondent gave notice of preliminary objection that leave to appeal ought not to have been given in respect of questions (i) to (vi), or alternatively, this court should decline to answer these questions because they do not fall within the ambit of s 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (‘CJA’) on the grounds stated in the notice. In this regard we are in agreement with the view expressed by Abdul Hamid Mohamed JCA (as he then was) in Raphael Pura v Insas Bhd & Anor [2003] 1 MLJ 513 where in delivering the majority judgment he stated at p 543:

The first question that arises from this submission is whether, the

leave having been granted by this court and now that this court (this

panel) is constituted to hear the appeal, this court (this panel)

should allow the respondents to re-open the issue whether the leave

should have been granted or not.

Generally speaking, it should not. The issue has been decided by this

court. It is res judicata. A party should not be given a second bite of

the