VC George J:

(On encl. (13), (16) & (17))

Sometime in December 1986 the first defendant (UEM) was given what is known as a letter of intent, by the ministry of works under the hand of the minister of works, indicating that the Government of Malaysia was prepared to enter into a contract with UEM in respect of the construction and maintenance of the north south highway and certain other roads.

The plaintiff is a member of Parliament and the leader of the opposition in the Dewan Rakyat and in bringing this action claims to do as such and as "a taxpayer, a motorist and a frequent user of highways and roads in the country". He wants the Court to declare that the award of the letter of intent is null and void and for an order restraining UEM from entering into the contract that the letter of intent has reference to. Apart from UEM he has made the minister of finance, the minister of works and the government of Malaysia defendants to the action.

The plaintiff sets out the basis of his claim in the statement of claim that he has filed. Some of the more salient averments he makes are that UEM is a company in effect owned and controlled by a company called Hatibudi Sdn. Bhd. Hatibu