Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Execution of judgment

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2026

1. ) NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH 2. ) YANTI BINTI RAHMAN ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12B-15-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-15-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the Plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that RM980,000.00 was paid; the acknowledgement letter's authenticity was not established; witness evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated; adverse inference under s114(g) was inapplicable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
9 Oct 2025

1. ) OI KONG GEE 2. ) KHOO LAY SIM TEO HOW KEN

Citation

KA-12A-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-12A-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the sessions court failed to account for the appellants' equitable interest and the respondent's unjust enrichment after receipt of the purchase monies and agreed extension; consequently leave dated 23.7.2023 and the writ of possession dated 13.8.2023 were set aside and respondent ordered to pay costs.
28 Jul 2025

CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

Citation

22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-456-10/2014 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute the consent judgment was properly granted because the triggering event (sale of the property) occurred in 2025 so there was no undue delay; the Rules expressly allow ex parte applications for leave to execute after six years (Order 46 r.2-3); the dispute concerns compliance with clear terms of the consent judgment entitling the plaintiff to excess sale proceeds, not indefeasibility of title; laches did not apply as the plaintiff applied promptly after the auction.
13 May 2025

RHB Bank Berhad 1. ) Mohd Radzman bin Ilyas 2. ) Roslaini binti Abdul Rahman @ Husni

Citation

TA-B52-09-09/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B52-09-09/2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application for leave to issue a writ of execution was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the delay in enforcing the 2017 judgment, failed to maintain accurate and segregated accounts vis-à-vis a bankrupt co-borrower, conducted significant steps only after the six-year period expired, and thereby prejudiced the defendants; exercise of discretion was not warranted.
8 Apr 2025

GOLDEN MINERALS SDN BHD 1. ) THARMANANDAN A/L THANGAMUTHU 2. ) ALAM ETIKAA RESOURCES (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) Dato' Rajagopal A/l Ramasamy

Citation

CA-22NCvC-44-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-22NCvC-44-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the seized assets were the property of Golden Minerals at the time of seizure; there was no cogent evidence of fraud or sham transfers to justify piercing the corporate veil; defendant was liable for wrongful execution/trespass; defendant's counterclaim for abuse of process failed; plaintiff awarded RM102,461.88 and costs RM10,000 (subject to taxation).
13 Sept 2024

JNH BINA SDN. BHD. Suhaimi Bin Sabudin PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Pulau Pinang

Citation

PA-37G-36-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-37G-36-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed and the Garnishee Order absolute is affirmed because the progressive payments due from the PDC were money belonging to the judgment debtor and therefore garnishable despite contractual assignments to SME Bank, particularly where the assignee did not intervene, some assignments post‑dated the judgment, and the judgment debtor repeatedly admitted the PDC owed it sums.
16 Apr 2024

Kerajaan Malaysia XXXX

Citation

AA-21NCVC-6-05/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-21NCVC-6-05/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted leave because the plaintiff satisfied Order 46 r.3 by filing an affidavit identifying the judgment and amounts and explaining delay (negotiations, installment arrangement, awaiting tax appeal), the debt is a recoverable tax liability under the Income Tax Act, s.33 Limitation Act excludes Government tax recovery from time bar, and refusal would prejudice the Government while defendants remained unresponsive.
16 Oct 2023

1. ) S SELVARAJA A/L SANGARA PILLAI 2. ) SUBRAMANIAM A/L M SANGRAPILLAI K JEYABALAN A/L KANAGARATNAM

Citation

WA-22NCvC-636-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-636-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Statement of Claim disclosed no determinable cause of action because the subject matter had been finally determined by an earlier judgment; the relief sought was enforcement which must be pursued under Order 45 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the present proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, therefore the claim is struck out.
2 Aug 2023

1. ) Aseambankers Malaysia Berhad 2. ) RHB Bank Berhad 3. ) AmBank (M) Berhad 4. ) DBS Bank Ltd, Cawangan Labuan 5. ) Alliance Merchant Bank Berhad 6. ) Malayan Banking Berhad 7. ) Malaysian Industrial Development Finance Berhad 8. ) Southe

Citation

WA-28PW-516-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-516-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the judgment creditors failed to demonstrate cogent reasons under Order 46 ROC for not pursuing execution by the prescribed modes in Order 45 within six years; their deliberate strategy to pursue bankruptcy proceedings does not satisfy the requirement for fresh leave to execute and is fatal to the application, notwithstanding findings on limitation and the court's ability to grant fresh leave.
4 Jan 2023

MOHAMED YAACOB BIN HUSAIN 1. ) LAKSHMANAN A/L SUBRAMONIAN 2. ) PENGHUNI-PENGHUNI DI ATAS HARTANAH YANG TERKANDUNG DI DALAM GRN 20686, LOT 10307, MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN

Citation

BL-24NCvC-20-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCvC-20-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service was held valid because documents were delivered at the property's address and acknowledged in the presence of D1; the application to set aside was filed out of time (beyond 30 days) without satisfactory explanation; defendants failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence with documentary evidence (bare denial); execution routed via MTSA was procedurally acceptable given enforcement capacity. Therefore the application to set aside the order dated 30.5.2022 is dismissed with costs.