GEONEX (M) SDN BHD OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

GEONEX (M) SDN BHD OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Court held that writs of seizure and sale may be filed in the court where the assets are situated; costs are enforceable as part of judgment but Rule 47(1) Rules of Court 2012 authorises suspension of execution where special circumstances exist. The applicant demonstrated special circumstances (risk of appeal being rendered nugatory and evidence suggesting creditor may be unable to repay), therefore a stay of execution of the writ of seizure and sale relating to costs was granted with costs to the applicant.

Citation
CB-37WS-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD.; Judgment Debtor: BAYU MINING SDN. BHD.; Judgment Debtor: OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN; Judgment Debtor: MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
CB-37WS-2-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application to Stay Execution of Writ of Seizure and Sale (execution Proceedings) / Inter Partes Hearing on Stay Pending Disposal of Appeal
Outcome
Application to suspend execution of writ of seizure and sale granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Writ of Seizure and Sale, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Special Circumstances / Nugatoriness, Interpretation of Rules of Court 2012
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgment Costs Judicial Review of Procedural Rules Appeal Law Stay of Execution Writ of Seizure and Sale Enforcement of Costs Orders +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD.

Judgment Creditor

BAYU MINING SDN. BHD.

Judgment Debtor

OTHAMAN BIN ABDUL RAHMAN

Judgment Debtor

MOHD SABRI BIN AZIZ

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Application to Stay Execution of Writ of Seizure and Sale (execution Proceedings) / Inter Partes Hearing on Stay Pending Disposal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a writ of seizure and sale may be issued in a court other than the court which delivered the original judgment
  2. 2 Whether execution of an order for costs may be stayed pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established 'special circumstances' under Rule 47(1) Rules of Court 2012 to justify a stay

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that writs of seizure and sale may be filed in the court where the assets are situated; costs are enforceable as part of judgment but Rule 47(1) Rules of Court 2012 authorises suspension of execution where special circumstances exist. The applicant demonstrated special circumstances (risk of appeal being rendered nugatory and evidence suggesting creditor may be unable to repay), therefore a stay of execution of the writ of seizure and sale relating to costs was granted with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application to suspend execution of writ of seizure and sale granted

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the writ of seizure and sale dated 09.05.2024 granted pending disposal of the appeal
  • Costs of the stay application awarded to the applicant (judgment debtor)