Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ibra' (rebate)

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2025

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD AHMAD ASYRAF BIN ALIAS

Citation

KA-22M-11-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22M-11-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The JID application is allowable only if the Statement of Claim expressly pleads the ibra' undertaking because BNM Guidelines and SAC resolutions have transformed ibra' from discretionary to a mandatory contractual/regulatory obligation for sale-based financings, and absence of such pleading renders the claim substantively incomplete; accordingly the Court permitted the default judgment subject to amendment to include an ibra' clause and an express provision that actual ibra' is to be determined at full settlement.
6 Jan 2022

CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad 1. ) BINA VARIAMAS DEVELOPMENTS SDN BHD 2. ) PHUALIN HOLDINGS SDN BHD 3. ) KEE KAR LIN 4. ) KEE LIAN YONG 5. ) ROSLAN BIN HARUN

Citation

WA-22M-148-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-148-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment granted for plaintiff: contractual clauses and statutory law (Order 42 r.12A and BNM guidance) permit awarding ta'widh at IIMM post-judgment; plaintiff not contractually obliged to realize charged assets before suing; ibra' payable only upon full settlement so judgment may be entered without rebate; plaintiff's certificate of indebtedness is conclusive absent manifest error, and defendants failed to raise triable issues.
23 Aug 2021

PROLINK MARKETING SDN BHD AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-417-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-417-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's claims were struck out because they were obviously unsustainable: the redemption letters did not demonstrate that the judgment sum was excessive as the facility agreements and Bank Negara guidance permit the bank to claim full selling price and grant Ibra' only on full early settlement; foreclosure proceedings are distinct and prior proceedings and an earlier struck out suit barred relitigation; therefore the writ was frivolous and vexatious and fit to be struck out under O.18 r.19 ROC 2012.
23 Dec 2020

1. ) REKA INDAH DEVELOPMENT (PENANG) SDN. BHD. 2. ) IBRAHIM BIN ISMAIL 3. ) LIM SENG HOOI 4. ) ABDUL KARIM BIN MD OMAR 5. ) YEAP HOCK KEE BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-141-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-141-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied the Order 14 preliminary requirements; defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue because their Shariah objections were bald afterthoughts without contemporaneous evidence, documentary record established the transactions and agency, contractual terms authorized termination and acceleration on default, and Ibra' is only due on early settlement; accordingly summary judgment is appropriate and entered for the plaintiff for the pleaded sums together with late payment charges.
14 Dec 2020

1. ) MEGA FIRST MARKETING SDN BHD 2. ) PHANG CHEU PING OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-254-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-254-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the defendant's O.18 r.19 strike‑out application because the Plaintiffs' claims were, on their face, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process; key causes of action were barred by res judicata as the Plaintiffs failed to raise them in prior Sessions Court proceedings; legal and regulatory principles (BNM guidelines, Contracts Act jurisprudence) demonstrate the pleaded grounds (Shariah non‑compliance, Ta'widh, Ibra', constructive trust, misrepresentation, fraudulent judgment) were unsustainable as a matter of law and did not merit trial.
2 Sept 2020

BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (NS) SDN. BHD. 2. ) WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) RANGKAIAN MINANG (NS) SDN BHD 4. ) VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RATNAVELU 5. ) MD. ISA BIN SALIM 6. ) JAMALUDIN BIN AHMAD

Citation

WA-22M-155-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-155-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants established a genuine triable issue as to the validity and certainty of the Murabahah Sale Contract because the sale instrument expressly referenced a Purchase Requisition and Letter of Agency of the same date as the sale which were not produced; that uncertainty requires oral evidence and cross‑examination and precludes summary judgment. Because the primary liability of the 1st Defendant is contested, the 3rd Defendant cannot be held liable against summary judgment at this stage despite the Specific Debenture.

Malaysia Case Law

CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD AHMAD ASYRAF BIN ALIAS

CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad 1. ) BINA VARIAMAS DEVELOPMENTS SDN BHD 2. ) PHUALIN HOLDINGS SDN BHD 3. ) KEE KAR LIN 4. ) KEE LIAN YONG 5. ) ROSLAN BIN HARUN

PROLINK MARKETING SDN BHD AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

1. ) REKA INDAH DEVELOPMENT (PENANG) SDN. BHD. 2. ) IBRAHIM BIN ISMAIL 3. ) LIM SENG HOOI 4. ) ABDUL KARIM BIN MD OMAR 5. ) YEAP HOCK KEE BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

1. ) MEGA FIRST MARKETING SDN BHD 2. ) PHANG CHEU PING OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (NS) SDN. BHD. 2. ) WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN. BHD. 3. ) RANGKAIAN MINANG (NS) SDN BHD 4. ) VIJAYAKUMAR A/L RATNAVELU 5. ) MD. ISA BIN SALIM 6. ) JAMALUDIN BIN AHMAD