1. ) Masera Realty Sdn Bhd v 1. ) TEH SHEAU TYNG (WA-37G-22-01/2021)

1.

WONG KOON HUNG (520606-01-5891) …PLAINTIFF-PLAINTIFF

1.

2.

3.

LEE AH LAN @ LEE KEOK HOOI …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The 2nd to 4th Defendants have appealed against the decision of the learned Senior Assistant Registrar regarding Enclosure 13 that have refused to set aside or amend the order garnishee absolute entered against them dated 24-3-2021.

The order garnishee absolute states, inter alia,: - “segala hutang yang kena dibayar atau terakru kena dibayar daripada orang yang digarnis yang disebutkan di atas kepada Defendan-defendan ditahan sebagai menjawap penghakiman yang didapatkan terhadap Defendan-defendan oleh Plaintif-plaintif yang dinamakan di atas di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 8 Oktober 2018, untuk jumlah wang sebanyak RM 17, 189, 229.91 yang terdiri daripada jumlah penghakiman sebanyak RM 15, 218, 791.00 alokator RM 2,800.00 dan kos RM 70,000.00…”

Whereas the order of the High Court dated 8-10-2018 only states: - “Tuntutan Sivil No: WA-22-NCVC-660-10/2016: - i. Defendan Pertama iaitu Delta Park Sdn Bhd diperintahkan membayar sejumlah RM 15,218,791.00 kepada Plaintiff Pertama iaitu Masera Realty Sdn Bhd. ii. Faedah 5% atas jumlah RM 15, 218, 791.00 dari tarikh pemfailan writ iaitu 25-10-2016 sehingga tarikh penyelesaian. iii. Kos berjumlah RM 70,000.00 dibayar oleh Defendan-defendan kepada Plaintif pertama dan Plaintif kedua.” B. Decision of this Court

Having considered the submissions filed by the solicitors, I am of the view that the learned Registrar had committed an error in entering the garnishee order absolute beyond what was ordered by the High Court earlier.

The High Court had only directed that the 2nd to 4th Defendants to pay the sum of RM 70,000.00 to the Plaintiffs and that the obligation to pay the sum of RM 15, 218, 791.00 falls squarely with the First Defendant, the company.

It would be wrong for the Registrar to direct the payment from the other Defendants for the debts owed by the First Defendant. No such order was made by the learned trial Judge dated 8-10-2018.

I note the objections raised by counsel for the Plaintiffs that relies substantially on the time frame and the issue of functus officio as well as technicalities on the validity of the order dated 8-10-2018.

However, those arguments misses the penultimate point that this Court cannot make any order of garnishee beyond what was ordered by the trial Judge. To do so will essentially enlarge the order made earlier beyond what was intended by the order dated 8-10-2018.

I am also of the view that since the garnishee absolute order was wrongly entered on the wrong sum and not the actual sum due, the Defendants are entitled as of right to rectify the said orders to reflect the actual orders made by the High Court earlier. I refer the case of Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor v Berjaya Land Bhd & Ors [2022] 10 CLJ 829 and Khor Cheng Wah v Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd [1997] 1 CLJ 396.

It would be wrong for this Court to ignore the flagrant errors made by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar merely on the technical grounds raised by the Plaintiffs’ learned counsel. This Court must ensure that the sums are actually ordered to be paid and the correct party from which the said sum must be paid from, is reflected in the garnishee order absolute.

In those circumstances, I allowed part of the appeal filed by the Defendants and amend the order to ensure that the correct judgment sums due by the 2nd to 4th Defendants are reflected in the order garnishee absolute. In other words, no sums should be ordered to be paid by the said 2nd to 4th Defendants exceeding the sum of RM 70,000.00. Dated 16th January 2023 Dato’ Indera Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin Judicial Commissioner High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur NCvC 8 Mr. Muaz Al Awar for the Plaintif. Messrs Hakim Abdul Wahid & Co (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates & Solicitors Mr. W C Chiang for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants