(delivering the Judgment of the Court): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court at Miri, Sarawak, which on December 10, 1984 allowed the respondents application for summary judgment in the total sum of B$109,192.12 cts. under Order 14 RSC 1980 in respect of a judgment obtained in Brunei High Court on July 20, 1982. The relevant part of the Order appealed against reads: —

"It is ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiffs in Brunei currency for the sum of $75,000.00 and taxed costs of $34,192.12, interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment and costs to be taxed."

At the hearing of the Order 14 application, the appellants — a newspaper company incorporated in Malaysia and the proprietor of a journal circulating in Brunei — contested the application on two grounds. First, the Brunei judgment was obtained by fraud, and second, the enforcement of the foreign judgment was against public policy. The entire allegation of fraud can be found in Mr. Lin Kuan Yuh's two affidavits in opposition affirmed on July 10, and October 15, 1984. Paragraph 3 of the first affidavit reads: —

"I crave leave to refer to Order 14 Rule 2(b) of the Rules of the High Court and paragraph 2 of the Defence which averred that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud and the Plaintiffs' Counsel have requested for the particulars of the fraud, a copy letter dated the 27th day of March, 1984 is now produced and marked 'LKY' and a reply thereto from our firm dated the 16th day of April, 1984 is now produced and marked 'LKY' 1. Therefore the Plaintiffs erred in law and fact in making this application under Order 14 and should be dismissed with cost."

Paragraph 3 of the second affidavit merely adds: —

"It is submitted that the Mekanda Singh Sandhu's Affidavit is irrelevant for the reason that the fraud was discovered after the Brunei trial as stated in Paragraph 2 of the Defence".

Having reminded himself of the established principles in Order 14 application and also the necessity to particularize any defence as propounded by Lord Blackburn in Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 685, 704, the learned judge found on the factual material before him as deposed by Mr. Lin that the defence of fraud set up by the appellants was not bona fide and that the fraud alleged was frivolous and was put up merely for the purpose of delay. On the second ground, the learned judge also did not find favour with the appellents' contention that the enforcement of the Brunei judgment in Malaysia was against public policy.

These two grounds are again canvassed before us in addition to allegation of procedural defects in the affidavits in support of the respondents' Order 14 application and as well as to objection on the jurisdiction of the Borneo High Court to deal with the case. Both the objections on procedure and jurisdiction were never raised before. This court has a discretion in the interest of justice to allow the objection on jurisdiction although it was never raised in the court below (see S Mariappan v Government of Malaysia [1983] 2 MLJ 340). However, since the appellants had voluntarily appeared in the Brunei High Court and had submitted to its jurisdiction, and also had entered unconditional appearance in the court below, Mr. Lin Kuan Yuh for the appellants concedes that in reality the appeal is not based on jurisdiction of either the foreign or Malaysian Court, but it is on the original basis that the court at Miri ought not to have allowed the Order 14 application. As regards the procedural objection, it is our view that whatever defects there might be in the affidavits in support of the applications must be deemed to have been waived. Mr. Manikam Kugarajah's two affidavits were read at the hearing without any objection, and their contents were in fact cited by the appellants' advocate in the course of his argument. On the public policy ground, Mr. Lin is unable to deve