Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prohibitory order

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

PRAGASH A/L SAVARIMUTHU KAVITA A/P NADARAJAN

Citation

JA-24NCvC-306-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-306-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff failed to prove valid service of the Sessions Court judgment and registered the Prohibitory Order prematurely without serving the Defendant or the chargee; these procedural defects constituted sufficient cause under Order 47 r.6(k) ROC 2012 to set aside the ex parte order and the registered Prohibitory Order, and the Defendant's application was not time‑barred because valid service had not occurred to start the 30‑day period.
23 Jul 2024

MOHAMMAD SHAHFIQ BIN ISHAK PIHAK TERKILAN KWL MINERAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-31NCvC-343-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-31NCvC-343-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The caveator failed to prove a sufficient caveatable interest to justify preventing the grant of Letters of Administration; a creditor's judgment alone, without evidence of disputed title, trust, intermeddling or proprietary interest in the estate, is insufficient to sustain a caveat pre-grant. Therefore the caveat must be removed and the LA granted to the applicant.
30 May 2024

AMPWALK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Teo Eng Chin

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-67-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-67-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrates' Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a prohibitory order over immovable property; only the High Court is a court of competent jurisdiction to issue such orders and the Rules of Court or s99A SCA 1948 do not displace the statutory jurisdictional limits.
19 Feb 2024

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN GENTING VIEW RESORT MERANTI APARTMENT KURNIA HALIM & OTHERS PENCELAH MLDC BERHAD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI MALAYSIA LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BERHAD)

Citation

CB-36-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-36-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court confined itself to whether the prohibitory order, writ of seizure and sale and sale order were regular in execution; having found the strata title to the unit was registered in the intervener's name (MLDC Berhad) and that statutory strata recovery mechanisms exist, the enforcement by prohibitory order and sale would unduly prejudice the registered proprietor and was inappropriate; accordingly the Court set aside the prohibitory order, the writ of seizure and sale and the sale order and awarded costs of RM7,000 subject to allocatur.
4 Oct 2023

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-250-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of contempt because the Stay Order did not expressly prohibit applying for, presenting or registering an extension of the Prohibitory Order; the Court had clarified the Plaintiff may apply to extend the PO and registration is the procedural method by which an extension takes effect; the alleged misconduct was not particularized within the Statement as required; and by the time of hearing the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Defendant’s appeal making the committal application inappropriate. Accordingly leave was refused and the application…
2 May 2023

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

W-03(IM)-17-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-03(IM)-17-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held Sinohydro complied with the specific disclosure requirements of O.47 r.6(c); the matters the High Court treated as material non-disclosures were not required by that rule and were not material for the ex parte issuance of a PO under the enforcement regime. A secured creditor is not precluded from pursuing available execution remedies; the stay granted suspended execution only and did not nullify the substratum for the PO. Accordingly the High Court erred in setting aside the PO and the Deputy Registrar's order is to be restored.
10 Mar 2023

SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-36-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-36-31-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted the stay of execution pending disposal of the CIPAA appeals based on public interest and real risk of rendering the appeals nugatory, and allowed the appeal from the Deputy Registrar to set aside/discharge the ex-parte Writ of Seizure and Sale and Prohibitory Order because Sinohydro committed material non-disclosure in the ex-parte application and thus breached the duty of full and frank disclosure.
23 Jun 2022

LIM SIEW HOON LOW CHENG LEE PENCELAH SUKDEV SINGH A/L HARCHARAN SINGH

Citation

PA-24NCvC-518-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-518-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because (1) there was no extant proceeding in the Originating Summons to intervene in once the Prohibitory Order and Order for Sale were made and perfected, and (2) alternatively, the Proposed Intervener failed to demonstrate the requisite direct legal interest in the property because the friendly loan was the dominant contract and the SPA operated as security only; intervention would therefore be unjust and likely to delay execution.
17 Mar 2022

ALPINE PEERS (M) SDN. BHD. NORHUDA BINTI MOHAMAD NOH

Citation

BA-36-17-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-36-17-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant raised the legality of the prohibitory order by collateral attack without filing a proper application to set aside it; the extension was granted before expiry and therefore the prohibitory order remained valid and enforceable until set aside, so the Deputy Registrar correctly allowed the order for sale.
8 Jul 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN 1. AMINUL ISLAM ABDUL NOR (NRIC NO.: 670508-79-5039) 2. JR JOINT RESOURCES HOLDINGS SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 462917-T) PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN JALALUDIN BIN SULAIMAN (NRIC NO.: 680728-01-5515)

Citation

JA-36-17-07/2019 [enclosure 23] (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-36-17-07/2019 [enclosure 23] (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the execution cause papers by registered post was valid and presumed effective under s12 Interpretation Acts and Order 62 r6 ROC; the judgment debtor failed to rebut that presumption; the challenged Rules of Court provisions (Order 45/47) were inapplicable as they concern committal; the Amended Judgment was clear and enforceable and the JD is estopped from collateral attack after exhausting appeals. Accordingly the application to set aside the execution proceedings was dismissed with costs.