Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail J:

[1] This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar whereby she allowed an application by the third defendant to have a judgment entered against her be set aside, on the ground that she has a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim. On 26 June 1986 the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in default of appearance against the third defendant for the sum of RM205,353.24 with interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum with monthly rests from 1 December 1985 until payment; RM237,433.50 with interest at the rating of 15.75% per annum on the sum of RM203,872.40 from 1 December 1985 until payment and RM4,805.89 with interest at 14.75% per annum on RM4,351.00 from 1 December 1985 until payment.

[2] At the trial before the learned Senior Assistant Registrar it was the defendant's contention that the judgment in default of appearance entered as stated above is irregular and defective in that it contravenes the then existing O 42 r 12 of the Rules of the High 1980, which only allowed for plaintiff to claim interest of 8% per annum from date of judgment. Plaintiff's reply to this is simple they had applied for an amendment to the default judgment in order to comply with O 42 r 12 and which application was allowed by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar. The next issue raised by the third defendant is that the plaintiff's claim is based on facilities granted to the first defendant vide the plaintiff's letter of offer dated 10 November 1983. She contends that she is a housewife and was appointed a director of first defendant to give an impression of bumiputra participation which fact is not uncommon nowadays. She contends that after the facilities granted to the first defendant for which the third defendant guaranteed in 1983 had been cancelled on or about March 1985 and replaced with new facilities. This apparently is contained in a letter from plaintiff dated 8 March 1985 which inter alia states that the new offer is to supercede and cancel the previous letter of offer dated 10 November 1983. The third defendant contends that by 8 March 1985 she had already resigned as a director of first defendant effective 25 January 1985.

[3] The plaintiff contends that third defendant's application should not be litigated as it was thrashed out some four years ago when she unsuccessfully applied to have the judgment set aside before another High Court.

[5] It is my considered view that the third defendant has successfully shown that she has a defence. Of course whether she succeeds or not is not the issue at this stage. The plaintiff's contention that the second offer has nothing to do with third defendant cannot, to my mind, be a valid contention especially when the new offer contained an express condition that "a joint and several guarantee of all the directors be taken". It is not denied that by the date of the second offer third defendant was no longer a director and as such may well be not liable on the guarantee. I agree with the contention of the third defendant that if the second offer is not meant to supercede and cancel the first offer and third defendant is still meant to be liable under the guarantee executed by her on the strength of the first offer why therefore is the necessity to request for a fresh joint and several gu