Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This an appeal against the order of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur made upon the respondent's summons for judgment. In his writ the respondent claimed the sum of RM268,888 against the appellant. The learned Judge entered judgment against the appellant for the sum of RM168,888 but gave him unconditional leave to defend in respect of the balance. There is no cross-appeal by the respondent against this latter order. The factual background to this case may be briefly stated.

[2] The appellant is one of the shareholders of a private limited company known as Wealth Sdn Bhd ("the company"). He is also one of its directors. The company was at all material times the registered proprietor of three lots of land in the Mukim of Kajang. The land in question adjoins a rather prestigious housing development known as "Country Heights". At the time the company acquired the land it was classified as agricultural land. The company intended to develop it. There was therefore a need to convert its use from agricultural to housing and to have it subdivided. There was also a problem of access from the land in question through Country Heights. It is common ground that the appellant considered the gaining of this right of way to the land as a matter of importance as it would have the effect of enhancing the land's value. The company accordingly engaged a firm of surveyors to prepare the necessary documents for submission to the appropriate authority for conversion and subdivision. The surveyors, having completed the necessary documentation, submitted the same to the office of the Land Administrator in and for the District of Ulu Langat on 26 January 1991 for consideration.

[3] At about this time, the appellant was introduced to the respondent and sought his assistance in connection with the conversion and subdivision. According to the appellant, the respondent told him that he knew the Menteri Besar for the State of Selangor and other senior State Government officers and that he was prepared to assist in the matter. He expected to be paid for his services. He asked for a fee of RM268,888. It is not disputed that the appellant, in his personal capacity, agreed to pay this fee if the respondent would assist in obtaining speedy approval from the State Authority of the company's application for conversion and subdivision.

[4] On 28 January 1991, a letter was written to the Menteri Besar. The company's letterhead was used. It bore the signature of the respondent who was designated "Project Manager".

[5] It is obvious that this letterhead was furnished by the appellant to the respondent to enable the latter to make representations on the company's behalf. The letter referred to the company's application for conversion and subdivision. It asked for assistance from the Menteri Besar for an early approval of the application.

[6] Sometime later, the respondent produced this very letter to the appellant. Across a space atop the letter, there appears a handwritten note addressed to the Land Administrator for the District of Ulu Langat. It reads "Di sokong." There is a signature below the notation. The appellant does not dispute that it is indeed the signature of the Menteri Besar. Having seen this letter, the appellant paid RM100,000 to the respondent. It is common ground that the respondent did not give any receipt for this sum. Counsel for the appellant, during his argument before us, repeatedly complained of this. But the respondent and his solicitors have been absolutely frank and honest about it. They have acknowledged, in the statement of claim, the receipt of this sum. So the complaint by Counsel in respect of is comes to naught.

[7] The undisputed documentary evidence shows that the Standing Committee approved the company's application on 22 July 1992, and that the State Executive Council gave its approval on 12 August 1992. By a letter dated 16 September 1992, the Land Administrator for the District of Ulu Langat informed the comp