JUDGMENT

1. In the application (encl. 88) the plaintiff applied for the revocation of the Power of Attorney granted to the defendant pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding and Sale & Purchase Agreement dated 10th April 1994, between the plaintiff and the defendant. By a Court Order dated 28th August, 1998, judgment in the Suit was given in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed with cost. Further, it was order that the defendant returned the land title to the plaintiff. The Order was extracted; it was perfected.

2 The defendant objected to the application on the ground that it had the effect of reopening and re-litigating the whole Suit. Learned counsel, Mr Gabriel Wong, submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction as it was functus officio. Further the matter was re judicata.

3 With respect, I do not agree with the learned counsel; it was not correct. The application is an ancillary application by the plaintiff, to revoke the Power of Attorney which is useless, and serve no useful purpose as its substratum is gone. It is better that the Power of Attorney be revoked, and its grantor possesses the right to do so for fear that it may fall into the wrong hands and may be used for untoward purpose. [3]

4 In the circumstances, I would allow the application with costs to the plaintiff.