9 Oct 2025
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.
26 Feb 2025
The application to set aside the writ was dismissed because the judgment was final and affirmed on appeal, defendants knowingly disobeyed the orders thus necessitating enforcement, the prior suspension did not preclude issuance of a fresh writ, and any procedural irregularity was properly cured under the Rules of Court 2012 and relevant authorities; possession has been executed and plaintiff is entitled to costs.
4 Oct 2024
The applicant, as a sub‑tenant without privity with the plaintiff or owner, had no enforceable interest once summary judgment for possession was entered against the defendant; consequently the applicant's occupancy was extinguished and amounted to trespass, and there were no special circumstances sufficient to justify a stay of execution; therefore the stay application was dismissed.
7 Jan 2024
The Building is permanently affixed to the Plot and therefore forms part of the land under s.5 NLC and binding authorities; pasting of the ex‑parte Order and Bailiff Notice on the Building in the presence of the Defendant satisfied O.45 r.3(3); the Defendant failed to establish merit to set aside the ex‑parte Order dated 28.9.2022, so the application is dismissed with costs.
23 Nov 2023
The Court granted leave to issue a Writ of Possession because the 1st Defendant satisfied the requirements of Order 45 r.3 and Order 46 r.3: the Plaintiff had sufficient notice (including service on solicitors and active participation), the summary judgment conclusively found the tenancy expired and occupation unlawful, and the pending appeal/stay did not constitute special circumstances to deny enforcement; accordingly enforcement of the summary judgment via writ was lawful and appropriate.
7 Nov 2023
The consent order operated as a binding agreement enforceable by leave to issue a writ of possession; the phrase 'tanpa sebarang gangguan' required the Petitioner to vacate so the Respondent and three children in her custody could occupy the matrimonial home without disturbance. The Petitioner's delay and personal circumstances did not excuse non‑compliance; accordingly the application for leave to issue a writ of possession was allowed and costs were awarded to the Respondent.
6 Apr 2023
The Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact in allowing the defendant's application to set aside the writ and suspend execution. The writ of possession implemented valid prior orders affirmed on appeal; the defendant's objections were technical and constituted an abuse of process; appellate intervention was justified under the plainly wrong test and the Deputy Registrar's decisions were set aside, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
9 Dec 2022
Plaintiff, as registered proprietor, held an indefeasible title under Section 340(1) NLC; defendants had not paid the purchase price under the recorded consent judgment and therefore had no legal or beneficial interest (following IB Capital), and the plaintiff had complied with procedural requirements for issuing the writ; accordingly the application to set aside the writ failed.
28 Oct 2022
The court allowed the plaintiff's application to issue a writ of possession because a Rule 14 judgment for vacant possession had been obtained and remained unappealed, defendants had been given opportunity to respond, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff consented to delay or to allow defendants to remain without payment; defendants' negotiations to buy and need for funds did not justify withholding enforcement.
7 Sept 2022
The court balanced strict procedural compliance against substantive justice under A.1A KKM 2012 and found the failure to give the notices required by A.45 k.3 did not produce such prejudice as to invalidate the leave or stall enforcement; absence of a stay of execution under s.73 meant the underlying judgment remained executable. Consequently the interlocutory applications to set aside the writ (Lampiran 8, 11 and 122) were dismissed with costs.