ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN. BHD. NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH

ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN. BHD. NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant raised the legality of the prohibitory order by collateral attack without filing a proper application to set aside it; the extension was granted before expiry and therefore the prohibitory order remained valid and enforceable until set aside, so the Deputy Registrar correctly allowed the order for sale.

Citation
BA-36-17-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN BHD; Judgment Debtor: NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Case Number
BA-36-17-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Execution Proceedings: Appeal Against Order for Sale / High Court (shah Alam) Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Order for Sale, Prohibitory Order, Extension of Prohibitory Order, Setting Aside Court Orders, Collateral Attack, Notice of Appeal Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Civil Procedure Execution of Judgment Land Law Judicial Review of Orders Order for Sale Prohibitory Order Extension of Prohibitory Order +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN BHD

Judgment Creditor

NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Execution Proceedings: Appeal Against Order for Sale / High Court (shah Alam) Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar should have allowed an order for sale of land
  2. 2 Whether an extension of a prohibitory order under the National Land Code was valid where a temporal gap allegedly existed
  3. 3 Whether the appellant could challenge the validity of a prohibitory order by collateral attack in execution proceedings without a separate application to set aside the order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant raised the legality of the prohibitory order by collateral attack without filing a proper application to set aside it; the extension was granted before expiry and therefore the prohibitory order remained valid and enforceable until set aside, so the Deputy Registrar correctly allowed the order for sale.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent RM2500