JUDGMENT

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

[1] I was informed recently by my deputy registrar that there was an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal pertaining to my decision which I decided during the fast track system. I quickly swung into action and called for the court file.

[2] By way of an originating summons in enclosure one (1), the plaintiffs sought for the following orders (in its original Malay text):

(a) suatu pengistiharaan bahawa defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma perjanjian jual beli bertarikh 3.1.1995 dan plaintif-plaintif telah dengan sewajarnya menamatkan perjanjian jual beli tersebut pada 9.3.2001 atau pada mana-mana tarikh yang Mahkamah yang mulia berpendapat patut dan sesuai atau dalam alternatifnya suatu deklarasi bahawa perjanjian jual beli tersebut ditamatkan oleh kerana kemungkiran kontrak oleh defendan;

(b) bahawa defendan membayar plaintif-plaintif gantirugi jumlah tertentu yang akan dikira pada kadar 10% setahun ke atas harga pembelian RM298,860.10 yang ditetapkan oleh perjanjian jual beli tersebut yang dikira dari hari-hari untuk penyerahan milikan kosong iaitu daripada 3.1.1998 sehingga tarikh penamatan perjanjian jual beli tersebut iaitu pada 9.3.2001 berjumlah RM95,062.68;

(c) bahawa defendan membayar balik plaintif-plaintif segala wang pembelian yang dibayar kepadanya iaitu wang berjumlah RM283,917.10;

(d) bahawa defendan membayar plaintif-plaintif faedah yang dibayar oleh plaintif-plaintif ke atas wang pinjaman berjumlah RM283,917.10 daripada Malayan Banking Berhad kepada pemaju setakat 28.2.2001 berjumlah RM60,033.58;

(e) bahawa defendan membayar yuran guaman yang berjumlah RM3,376.89 dibayar oleh plaintif-plaintif kepada peguamcara Malayan Banking Berhad;

(f) bahawa premium insuran sebanyak RM14,034.00 dibayar balik kepada plaintif-plaintif oleh defendan;

(g) faedah pada kadar 8% setahun ke atas jumlah penghakiman sehingga tarikh penjelasan sepenuhnya;

(h) kos permohonan ini; dan

(i) perintah-perintah lain atau perintah selanjutnya diberikan sepertimana Mahkamah yang mulia ini fikir patut dan suaimanfaat.

The English language text of what the plaintiffs sought for may be translated, briefly, as follows:

(a) a declaration that the defendant has breached the terms of the sale and purchase agreement dated 3.1.1995 and that the plaintiffs had terminated the said agreement on 9.3.2001 or at any date as the court deems fit and proper or, in the alternative, a declaration that the said agreement has been terminated for breach of contract by the defendant;

(b) that the defendant to pay the plaintiffs damages from the date when vacant possession ought to be given and that would be on 3.1.1998 to the date when the sale and purchase agreement was terminated and that would be on 9.3.2001 amounting to RM95,062.68 calculated on the purchase price of RM298,860.10 at 10% per annum on daily rest;

(c) that the defendant to refund to the plaintiffs all the monies paid for the purchase amounting to RM283,917.10;

(d) that the defendant to pay the plaintiffs interest which the plaintiffs had paid to Malayan Banking Berhad who in turn had paid to the developer for the loan of RM283,917.10 calculated as at 28.2.2001 amounting to RM60,033.58;

(e) that the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the legal fees amounting to RM3,376.89 incurred and expended by the plaintiffs earlier when the plaintiffs paid the solicitors for Malayan Banking Berhad;

(f) that the insurance premium paid by the plaintiffs in the sum of RM14,034.00 to be refunded to the plaintiffs by the defendant;

(g) interest at the rate of 8% per annum over the judgment sum until the date of full payment;

(h) costs of the application; and

(i) any other orders or relief which this court deems fit and suitable.

A scrutiny of the court file showed that the plaintiffs have withdrawn prayer (e) of enclosure one (1). That was a wise decision. Now, declaration is a remedy that is often resorted to. It developed in England by the courts of equity and it was