3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE 2. ) YONG SHANG MING 3. ) XXXX 4. ) Ir Yap Yee Hock

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE 2. ) YONG SHANG MING 3. ) XXXX 4. ) Ir Yap Yee Hock

The application was dismissed because the affidavit in support was defective and unverified (deponent lacked exhibited authority and gave inconsistent address) and because the plaintiff relied on incorrect procedural provisions; the correct route to enforce the judgment is by Order 45 remedies, therefore the interlocutory application under Orders 1A/2/92 failed and must be dismissed with costs.

Citation
22NCVC-586-10/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: 3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD; Defendant: PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE; Defendant: FOO ANN WAN; Defendant: HOOI YOU VON; Defendant: LOH KIM TONG @ WONG AH WAH; Defendant: LIM E @ LIM HOON NAM; Defendant: TAN CHING WEI; Defendant: ONG POO LIAN; Defendant: DR. ABDUL AZIZ BIN HJ KECHIL; Defendant: IR. YAP YEE HOCK
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Case Number
22NCVC-586-10/2013 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement of Judgment / Interlocutory Application to Compel Compliance/enforce Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Order 45 Enforcement, Order 1 a Non Compliance, Order 2 Irregularity, Order 92 Inherent Powers, Affidavit Verification, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Strata/management of Common Property Inherent Jurisdiction Order 45 Enforcement Order 1 a Non Compliance Order 2 Irregularity Order 92 Inherent Powers +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD

Plaintiff

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE

Defendant

FOO ANN WAN

Defendant

HOOI YOU VON

Defendant

LOH KIM TONG @ WONG AH WAH

Defendant

LIM E @ LIM HOON NAM

Defendant

TAN CHING WEI

Defendant

ONG POO LIAN

Defendant

DR. ABDUL AZIZ BIN HJ KECHIL

Defendant

IR. YAP YEE HOCK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement of Judgment / Interlocutory Application to Compel Compliance/enforce Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 1A, Order 2 and Order 92 was the proper procedure to enforce the judgment
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support was validly sworn and whether the deponent was authorised to swear it
  3. 3 Whether the reliance on Order 1A, Order 2 and Order 92 could substitute for enforcement remedies under Order 45

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the affidavit in support was defective and unverified (deponent lacked exhibited authority and gave inconsistent address) and because the plaintiff relied on incorrect procedural provisions; the correct route to enforce the judgment is by Order 45 remedies, therefore the interlocutory application under Orders 1A/2/92 failed and must be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Defendants in the sum of RM5,000