MUHAMMAD KAMIL J:

This is the sixth defendant/third party's (‘6D/TP’) application for stay of all proceedings in respect of the action until the final disposal of the three appeals to the Court of Appeal in this action.

The plaintiff and firstto fifth defendants opposed this application and prayed that it be dismissed with costs.

In the 6D/TP's summons in chambers dated 24 December 1998 (encl 327) no ground for its application for stay was stated. The affidavit of DavidGoh of the same date in support of this application has not shown any special circumstances to invoke the discretion of the court to grant the stay sought. The court has not given any decision on the action proper and no execution of any order is pending. Assuch, any allegation that the continuation of the proceedings pending the final disposal of the appeal may prove nugatory is irrelevant and highly speculative.

It may be noted that this power to grant a stay is discretionary and as such theapplicant must provide adequate materials before the court for it to exercise its discretion.

In para 4 of David Goh's affidavit, he alleged that:

Continuing with the proceedings presently before the disposalof the three appeals would prejudice Bacom's case irreparably particularly in view of the submissions made by the plaintiff which are contrary to the arguments and submissions raised during the hearing of the notice of motion dated 4 August 1997.

In para 5:

Further, in the event the proceedings are continued pending the disposal of the appeals referred to above, a decision in favour of Bacom in the appeals may result in substantial wastage of judicial time, cost andor may even prove nugatory.

On the issue of ‘irreparable prejudice’, David Goh has not shown how there would be irreparable prejudice or the basis to say that it is a ground for stay of proceedings.

DavidGoh's allegation that continuing the proceedings ‘may’ prove nugatory is irrelevant. A final decision on the merits of the civil suit proper has not been made, and there is also no pending execution of a final order as at the date hereof. It ispurely speculative to say whether the three appeals would render the 6D/TP's case nugatory.

The trial has taken more than two years. The parties have closed their cases and filed their respective written submissions. Further delay wouldbe caused by a stay of proceedings, and more importantly, it is not justifiable. David Goh's allegation that ‘a decision in favour of Bacom in the appeals may result in substantial wastage of judicial time, cost and or may even prove nugatory’is baseless and speculative.[1999] 6 MLJ 160 at 163

There is nothing in David Goh's affidavit to show special circumstances which are normally required to be shown when applying for a stay of execution of an order. See Kerajaan Malaysia v Dato' Hj Ghani Gilong [1995] 2 MLJ 119Kerajaan Malaysia v Jasanusa Sdn Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 105

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed) Vol 37 para 437 provides:

A stay of proceedings arises under an orderof the court which puts a stop or ‘stay’ on the further conduct of the proceedings in that court at the stage which they have then reached, so that the parties are precluded thereafter from taking any further step in the proceedings. The object ofthe order is to avoid the trial or hearing of the action taking place where the court thinks it is just and convenient to make the order, to prevent undue prejudice being occasioned to the opposite party or to prevent the abuse of process. The order is madegenerally in the exercise of the court's discretionary jurisdiction, and by way of summary process, that is without a trial on the substantive merits of the case, and, at any rate in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, an order for the stay of proceedingsis made very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

Further, para 439:

… In all cases, the grounds on which the application is made must be clearly specified, stating whether it is madeunder a particular statute or rule of cour