Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order for sale

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 1. ) Irfan Asfaar Bin Abdullah(dahulunya Nagarajan A/l Renganathan) 2. ) JEEVANATHAN A/L MANIKAM

Citation

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-38-1718-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances: they had actively participated in the fixation proceedings (filing multiple affidavits and proposing a higher reserve), the stay was filed after those steps and therefore amounted to abuse of process, the High Court Order for Sale had been regularly obtained and remained unchallenged for over 450 days (precluding approbation and reprobation), and the plaintiff could compensate if necessary; accordingly the stay was set aside and costs awarded.
10 Dec 2025

LIMRA FIDEM SDN BHD E-HONG HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24FC-895-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-895-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the charge was registered and the statutory and contractual notice requirements were satisfied (default predated Notice of Recall; Form 16D and one‑month lapse complied with s.254 and contractual clause 5), the purported breaches raised were primarily personam and did not constitute cause to the contrary under s.256(3); the moneylending agreement issues (no caveat, no double interest) were unfounded and the statement of account complied with statutory requirements, therefore order for sale by public auction is permitted and the Originating Summons is allowed.
10 Dec 2025

BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD QUANTUM MAJESTY SDN. BHD.

Citation

KA-38-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-38-14-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The SAR did not err: the Order for Sale was final and affirmed on appeal so substantive challenges to indebtedness, validity of Form 16D, and alleged Shariah issues could not be litigated at enforcement; the execution court is limited to auction management under Sections 256–259 NLC and may fix a reduced reserve price after failed auctions; the Plaintiff's valuation for forced sale was appropriate and the Defendant failed to produce a competing substantive valuation on the correct basis; appeal dismissed with costs.
23 Oct 2025

LEE BEE KIOW LEE BEE HONG

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(A)-1832-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(A)-1832-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The court held that (1) a co-proprietor in occupation is not liable for retrospective rent absent ouster or agreement and the Appellant's rent claim was dismissed; (2) for a prospective sale the Partial Redemption Sum, proven Renovation Costs, Necessary Sale and Purchase Expenses, and assessment/quit rents (excluding utilities) must be borne equally and deducted from sale proceeds before equal division; and (3) the Respondent bears the burden of proving the Renovation Costs; the High Court order was varied accordingly.
7 Oct 2025

KH-BASE ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) RHB BANK BERHAD 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah

Citation

PA-24NCvC-469-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-469-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held the Affidavit Pembetulan was a bona fide correction of an erroneous exhibit that introduced no new facts and caused no prejudice, the Form 16D dated 12 January 2024 was duly served on the applicant at multiple addresses, and the Land Administrator complied with s262 by proceeding ex parte when satisfied summons was properly served; accordingly there was no breach of statutory duty or natural justice and the Order for Sale was valid.
17 Sept 2025

BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT (M) BERHAD TOP TRIDENT TRADERS SDN. BHD. PENCELAH TENGKU NGAH PUTRA BIN TENGKU AHMAD TAJUDDIN

Citation

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court granted a temporary stay of the Originating Summons because the central dispute in the enforcement action (whether any debt exists and the validity of the underlying judgment and settlement) is likely to be determinative and is being litigated in pending related suits; proceeding would risk irretrievable prejudice to the defendant and inconsistent findings, while the plaintiff's interests are protected by the caveat and potential damages, therefore a stay is necessary for fairness and judicial economy; conversion to a writ and consolidation were refused because the Originating Summo…
29 Aug 2025

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 1. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN 2. ) CHONG POOI NEE

Citation

BA-24FC-322-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-322-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to adduce factual basis constituting a cause to the contrary under section 256(3) NLC; service was valid under the express deeming clauses of the Charge using the address supplied by the defendants and therefore the order for sale dated 3.6.2025 stands; defendants consented or were bound to deliver vacant possession under the Charge so reliefs seeking to prevent inspection or possession were not sustainable.
4 Aug 2025

Pertubuhan Keselamatan Sosial (PERKESO) LANGKASUKA LAND SDN BHD

Citation

KA-24FC-10-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-24FC-10-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court allowed both applications: Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving a 'cause to the contrary' under s256(3) NLC; service of Form 16D by prepaid registered post to the address in the charge satisfied statutory requirements and the s431(2) presumption; economic hardship and speculative funding proposals do not negate the chargee's statutory right to an Order for Sale; accordingly Order for Sale granted with specified sale terms and costs.
29 Jul 2025

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) SOON SIEW CHIN 2. ) HOW WENG HONG (SOON SIEW CHIN adalah tuan punya 1/2 hartanah dan kedua-duanya adalah Pentadbir Harta Pusaka bagi HOW PENG KOOI(Si Mati)

Citation

BA-24FC-783-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-783-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any cause to the contrary under s256 NLC; the registered charge is valid and indefeasible; service and Form 16D were proper; Plaintiff is entitled to an order for sale and costs.
25 Jul 2025

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 1. ) NG CHEE KAE 2. ) NG LOCK SENG

Citation

JA-24MFC-598-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24MFC-598-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied statutory prerequisites for the order for sale: Form 16D complied with s.254(1); no statutory requirement to include monthly payment breakdown or separate in personam demand to the chargor; the certificate of indebtedness was accepted absent any proof of manifest error by defendants; concurrent civil proceedings did not bar the in rem remedy; therefore there was no 'cause to the contrary' and the application for order for sale was allowed.