JUDGMENT

RK Nathan JC:

The plaintiffs are citizens of the Philippines and presently reside in Malaysia. They established a company called Syarikat Antarabangsa Minar (SAM) and were licensed by their Government to act as an agent to supply Filipino workers to Malaysia. The plaintiffs contend that by way of a letter dated 1 July 1995 the 1st defendant requested from the plaintiffs a supply of 490 Filipino workers for the defendants for their projects. The defendants also agreed that they would provide for an air ticket from the Philippines to Malaysia for each worker selected by the plaintiffs.

Pursuant to the said request the plaintiffs proceeded to advertise for workers both in the newspapers and through the radio and with the assistance of the personnel from the defendants were able to recruit 121 workers. The 2nd defendant then made the necessary application with the Malaysian immigration authorities for the work permits for the said workers.

The 2nd defendant having obtained the approval from the immigration department forwarded to the plaintiffs the said approval letter together with all other relevant documents to enable the plaintiffs to obtain the relevant medical clearance and exit permit and the visa application from the Malaysian Embassy in Manila for the said workers. The workers then resigned from their respective employments to prepare themselves for their departure to Malaysia.

Having completed all that was required of them the plaintiffs then requested from the defendants for the air tickets for the workers. However, the tickets were not forthcoming. As a result the plaintiffs contended that they suffered heavy losses.

Upon reports made by the workers against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were investigated by the Philippine National Bureau of Investigations on a charge of illegal recruitment and were accused of sabotaging the country's economy. The plaintiffs contended that based on the laws of the Philippines a charge of economic sabotage if proved merits life imprisonment. Further their licence to operate was terminated. The plaintiffs submitted that they had to meet the loss sustained by the workers which amounted to RM500,000 and that both the plaintiffs feared for their safety and that of their family.

Since the plaintiffs had lost their opportunity to collect agency fees the plaintiffs made various claims against the defendants for damages under various heads. For the purpose of this appeal I need not go into the various claims made.

Having entered their defence the defendants filed an application (encl. 6) seeking security for costs of RM750,000 and that until such security is provided all proceedings be stayed. The learned senior assistant registrar who heard this application made an order on 29 October 1996 granting security for costs of RM50,000 and that the costs of the said application be costs in the cause. The plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the said decision appealed before me.

Defendants' Case For Security For Costs

The defendants argued that since the plaintiffs were not ordinarily resident in Malaysia as pleaded in the statement of claim and since the plaintiffs had indicated that they were being investigated under the laws of the Philippines and that the licence to act as an agent granted by the Philippines Government had been revoked, all of these factors clearly showed the plaintiffs' intention of remaining citizens of the Philippines.

In reply the 1st plaintiff affirmed an affidavit (encl. 7) both on his behalf and on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff, his wife. He averred that the cause of the investigations against them was due to the conduct of the defendants in failing to remit the travel tickets for the 121 Filipino workers who lodged complaints against the plaintiffs. They also feared for their safety and so they came to Malaysia in March 1996 to institute these proceedings against the defendants. They averred that they have been granted a certificate from the office of the Depu