Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to execute after six years

Legal area

Court

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.
24 Mar 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

B52NCC-510-07/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B52NCC-510-07/2015 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient reasons under Order 46 Rules of Court 2012 because execution was suspended by separate proceedings and appeals, and the plaintiff could not lawfully execute the judgment until appellate processes concluded; accordingly the defendants' application to set aside the leave was dismissed.
6 Mar 2025

XXXX XXXX

Citation

WA-22NCC-364-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-364-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to execute was granted because the plaintiff identified the judgment and the outstanding debt, demonstrated that the delay was caused by negotiations and part payments by the judgment debtor (sufficient reason under Order 46 rule 3), and there was no concluded settlement or evidence that superseded or extinguished the judgment; therefore the exercise of discretion favored granting leave.
5 Nov 2024

MOK SHIAU PING 1. ) LAI KOK MING 2. ) PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-129-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-129-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal and held that leave of court is required to commence garnishee proceedings to execute a judgment where six years or more have elapsed, because garnishee proceedings form part of the execution framework under Orders 45 to 51 of the Rules of Court 2012 and must be read with Order 46 r.2(1)(a); therefore the Sessions Court's garnishee order was set aside.
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.
8 Nov 2022

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA 1. ) KU ZILATI BINTI KU SHAARI [NO. K/P: A1838036 (lama)/710103-02-5494 (baru)] 2. ) KU SHAARI BIN KU SAAD [NO. K/P: 3380300 (lama)/421020-02-5375 (baru)] 3. ) AHMAD FAUZI BIN RAMLI [NO. K/P: 6785651 (lama)/620710-

Citation

22-610-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22-610-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The default judgment was regularly obtained because service was proved by registered post receipts and the defendant engaged with correspondence at the served address; the defendant failed to file an affidavit of merits or a draft defence disclosing an arguable triable issue; the defendant proceeded with inordinate unexplained delay (approximately ten years, far beyond the mandatory 30 days), and her explanations were not credible; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
8 Nov 2022

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA 1. ) MOKHTAR BIN AWANG [NO. K/P: A1937673 (lama)/710710-11-5547 (baru)] 2. ) KU SHAARI BIN KU SAAD [NO. K/P: 3380300 (lama)/421020-02-5375 (baru)] 3. ) AHMAD FAUZI BIN RAMLI [NO. K/P: 6785651 (lama)/620710-11-5361

Citation

2-611-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

2-611-2010 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the court found on the balance of probabilities that service of the Writ and Judgment was properly effected, the default judgment was therefore regularly obtained, the 1st Defendant failed to file an affidavit of merits or draft defence disclosing an arguable triable issue, and there was an unexplained and inordinate delay of approximately ten years beyond the mandatory time limit, undermining the exercise of discretion to set aside the judgment.
30 Jun 2022

52-372-12/2011 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Citation

52-372-12/2011 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

52-372-12/2011 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of showing sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay (over four years after the six‑year enforcement period, and over ten years since judgment) in seeking leave under Order 46 r.3; absence of material explanation and failure to take enforcement steps justified refusal of leave to execute the judgment against the guarantor.
16 Apr 2021

1. ) MOEZ ALI AKBARALLY 2. ) FIROZ HUSAIN AKBARALLY PUBLIC BANK BERHAD (6463-H)

Citation

B04(IM)-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B04(IM)-114-03/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Where a prior leave to execute existed but execution attempts (including bankruptcy notices) proved unsuccessful and the leave thereafter ceased or was set aside, a creditor may obtain fresh leave under Order 46 and Order 92 ROC 2012; the court need only be satisfied with plausible reasons for delay and may grant leave that includes permission to issue bankruptcy notices because the right to issue bankruptcy is contingent on the right to execute.