JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul JCA:

The applicants entered into four agreements in 1998 for the purchase of certain estate lands from the respondents subject to certain conditions. The respondents are a co-operative society and are the registered owners of the estate lands which were used for the planting and cultivation of oil palm and an oil palm mill was erected on one of the lands. The applicants and the respondents soon had disputes over the completion of the agreements and several legal proceedings were instituted by them. Sometime in 2001 the respondents took over possession of the estate lands. This resulted in the applicants obtaining an interim injunction against the respondents on 26 September 2001. However, the interim injunction was dissolved by the High Court of Temerloh on 2 April 2002 though an Erinford Order was granted in favour of the applicants which resulted in them obtaining possession of the estate lands. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the dissolution of the interim injunction. It was dismissed on 12 May 2003 and the Erinford Order lapsed. An oral application made by the respondents for consequential relief for possession was refused. The respondents then filed an application in the High Court at Temerloh for consequential relief over the estate lands for the status quoof the parties to remain as of the time prior to the signing of the agreements. This application was allowed on 7 July 2003. The High Court dismissed an oral application made by the applicants for a stay of execution. The applicants then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the consequential relief granted by the High Court and also applied for a stay of execution. Both the applications were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 21 July 2003. The applicants then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court and a motion for a stay of execution ("the motion") of the order made by the High Court on 7 July 2003 and the Court of Appeal on 21 July 2003.

The motion came up for hearing on 11 August 2003. In his submission learned counsel for the applicants outlined the special circumstances that he relied on in support of the motion. They are as follows:

(i) the decision of the High Court of Temerloh dated 7.7.2003 and the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 21.7.2003 had summarily changed the status quo of the proprietorship and management of the disputed land because the substantive application by the respondent in High Court of Kuantan through civil suit no. 22-45-2002 with regard to the validity of the agreements and vacant possession which has not been disposed off. Further, the Respondent should have invoked Sections 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 (Revised 1974) and Order 89 of the Rules of High Court, 1980 and not to resort to Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court in the Respondent's Application 2;

(ii) the decision of the High Court of Temerloh dated 7.7.2003 had summarily denied the Applicants' rights over the disputed lands. The Applicant should remain the proprietor of the land unless the High Court of Kuantan has decided otherwise. The decision of the High Court of Temerloh on 7.7.2003 justifies this application;

(iii) the repercussion of the decision of the High Court of Temerloh dated 7.7.2003 are as follows:

- the Applicants will have to terminate the employment of 100 local workers.

- the Applicants have to send back more than 1000 foreign workers according to the immigration rules. This is because they only have a valid working permit to work with the Applicants.

- there will be breaches of contracts by the Applicants against third parties and Sri Cemerlang Mill Management Sdn Bhd.

- the Applicants will be liable to all of the Respondent's liability as the Respondent's creditors had agreed to novate the Respondent's liability to the Applicant for the sum of RM100 million.

- the Applicants will not be able to settle the debts if there is no stay of execution against the decisions of the