20 Dec 2022
The order sought to be enforced had been served after the 30‑day compliance period expired and was therefore no longer valid for enforcement; as a result no contempt was proven and the committal application fails.
20 Dec 2022
The committal application was dismissed because the order dated 25.10.2018 had lapsed for the purpose of enforcement by the time it was personally served on the defendant (service on 21.12.2018 and partner on 03.04.2019), contravening the mandatory requirement of Order 45 r7(2)(b) that service occur before expiration of the time to comply; a lapsed order is not enforceable by committal and therefore no contempt was established.
13 May 2022
The court held the ex‑parte leave was valid because the plaintiff complied with Aturan 52 KKM and the papers were in order; the defendant had knowledge of the draft order and the penal warning and failed to comply, and the failure to effect earlier personal service did not prejudice the defendant. The question whether committal is appropriate for a monetary judgment with penal warning is a matter for the High Court while the defendant's appeal remains pending, so the setting aside application was dismissed and committal proceedings were deferred pending the High Court decision.
20 Sept 2021
The ex parte interim injunction lapsed after 21 days and cannot be extended; however the notice of application for interim relief survives and must be heard inter partes under Order 29 rule 1(2BA); the Sessions Court erred in dismissing enclosure 5 without hearing its merits and in striking out related applications on the ground the ex parte order had lapsed; the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for inter partes hearing.
28 May 2021
A JP in Sabah is not authorised to attest affidavits for general civil proceedings absent specific statutory authority; however the appeal against the ex parte Mareva injunction is academic because that ex parte order lapsed and was superseded by fresh inter parte ad interim and final Mareva orders supported by affidavits sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths; the inter parte Mareva injunction was properly granted because respondent established a good arguable case, assets within jurisdiction and a real risk of dissipation; disclosure relief was lawful but must be confined to unencumbered ass…
6 Oct 2020
The committal applications were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to serve the mandatory formal notice to show cause under O.52 r.2B prior to making ex parte applications for leave; that procedural non‑compliance was mandatory and incurable, rendering the entire committal proceedings defective and necessitating dismissal in favour of the alleged contemnors.