Haidar J

There are two summons-in-chambers filed in this Suit No KG 73/1988, one by the plaintiffs (encl 10) under O 14 of the Rules of the HIGH COURT ['RHC'] to enter judgment against the defendants for the sum of $7,803,844 with interest thereon at the agreed rate of 8.75% pa from 1 January 1988 until full payment and costs of this action including the cost of this application to the plaintiffs in any event and the other by the defendants (encl 13) under O 18 r 19 of the RHC and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for an order that the plaintiffs' statement of claim be struck out and that the plaintiffs' action against the defendants be stayed or dismissed and that the defendants be at liberty to enter judgment for their costs, including the cost of this application to be taxed. Both counsels agreed that the two summons-in-chambers could be heard together by the court.

For the purpose of this judgment, I am of the view that it is more convenient for me to deal with the plaintiffs' application first as the decision may have a bearing on the defendants' application. However, before proceeding to consider the plaintiffs' application it is appropriate and relevant to give and consider the background facts of another Suit No KG 273 of 1986 between the same parties relating to the same subject matter except for the amount now claimed by the plaintiffs wherein the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment under O 14 was dismissed by Tan Chiaw Thong J. As a result of the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application, the plaintiffs elected to seek leave of the court to discontinue wholly Suit No KG 273/1986 against the defendants with liberty to file a fresh action in respect of their claim in the said action and which leave was accordingly granted by Tan Chiaw Thong J (see exh 'RK3' in encl 14).

In Suit KG 273/1986 the defendants in their defence relied on:

(a) the validity of the notice of demand;

(b) alleged repudiation on the part of the plaintiffs;

(c) estoppel.

The court ruled that there were triable issues of fact and law in respect of defences (a) and (c) but as to defence (b) the court held that the alleged repudiation was never accepted by the defendants and neither had the defendants treated the loan agreement as at an end (see p 4 of the judgment dated 30 September 1987).

As regards the issue on the validity of the notice of demand, Tan Chiaw Thong J held that there was a triable issue because of the defect relating to the amount the subject matter of the default notice which is not altogether clear and one which is unarguable (see p 3 of the judgment).

In respect of the estoppel issue, Tan Chiaw Thong J, said that the defendants succeeded in raising triable issues of fact and law as to whether, at the time of the institution of the action, the negotiations between the parties were still going on, which negotiations had started before the institution of the action; and if so, whether it has the effect of suspending the operation of the notice NG-2 and the written demand NG-4 (see p 10 of the judgment).

In the present application of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed this Suit No KG 73/1988 on 15 April 1988 where according to para 7 of their statement of claim, by a notice dated 18 January 1988 despatched by prepaid AR registered post to the defendants the plaintiffs gave the defendants 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice to settle the instalments due for $4,600,000. In the same notice the defendants were duly notified that they had not settled the accrued interest totalling $903,844 as at 31 December 1987 and were duly requested to settle the said interest due. The said notice was received by the defendants on 25 January 1988. According to para 8 of the statement of claim, despite the said notice to remedy the said defaults the defendants failed to settle the said instalments and interests due. Accordingly by letter dated 21 March 1988 sent by prepaid AR registered post to the defendants the plai