JUDGMENT

Lau Bee Lan J:

(1) The applicants have appealed against a part of the courts decision given on 1 June 2009 where the court has dismissed the applicants application for leave for judicial review (encl. 1). Basically on 1 June 2009, the court ruled:

The Court finds that there is inordinate delay and there are no good reasons to grant extension of time in respect of the 1st decision (13.1.1997).

In respect of the 2nd decision (21.2.2008), the Court is of the view that it is not a decision which is reviewable or amenable to judicial review.

Encl. 1 para (b), c(i), (ii) and (d) which relate to the 1st decision and para (a), (c)(iii) to (viii) which relate to the 2nd decision is dismissed.

(2) The applicants application (encl. 1) refers to two prayers and is in relation to two decisions dated 13 January 1997 ("1st decision") and 21 February 2008 ("2nd decision") of the 1st respondent:

(i) paragraph a, c(iii) to (viii) relate to the 2nd decision;

(ii) paragraph b, c(i), (ii) and (d) relate to the 1st decision.

(3) The court has considered the submissions of the applicants (AA1); 2nd submission - applicants response to submission of the 2nd respondent (A6) and 3rd submis