JUDGMENT

Mokhtar Sidin JCA:

We have dismissed the appeal earlier and now we give our reasons for doing so. To start with it is better for us to state the facts and the events leading to this appeal.

On 24 July 1998, the appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below, took out a writ for a declaratory order. To avoid any confusion we will refer to the appellant and the respondents as the plaintiff and defendants as in the court below. The declaratory order sought by the plaintiff are:

(i) that the performance bond dated 22 August 1998 was supplemental to a contract dated 15 July 1995, and thus invalid;

(ii) that the said contract and/or the performance bond did not permit the first defendant, whether by itself and/or through its agents or servants to make a call on the performance bond;

(iii) that an injunction be granted against the first defendant, whether by itself, or through its agents or servants from further calling and/or receiving the payment in the sum of RM4,800,000 which was payable upon the principal's written demand, made on the second-named defendant, until the disposal of the arbitration; (iv) for a declaration that the said performance bond is a conditional