Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad v Mohd Tarmizi Bin Selamat (TA-A52M-85-04/2019)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN KUALA TERENGGANU DALAM NEGERI TERENGGANU NO KES: TA-A52M-85-04/2019 ANTARA BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD [ No Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 196501000376/6175-W ] ...PLAINTIF DAN MOHD TARMIZI BIN SELAMAT [No Kad Pengenalan: 581102115289] ...DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

Lampiran

Lampiran 7 ini tanpa kos. Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan ini, Plaintif telah memfailkan notis rayuan bertarikh 17.12.2025 merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut ke Mahkamah Tinggi. 4. Plaintif merupakan sebuah bank manakala Defendan merupakan seorang individu. 5. Atas permohonan Defendan, Plaintif melalui surat tawarannya kepada Defendan bertarikh 13.2.2012 (Surat Tawaran Plaintif) telah bersetuju memberi kepada Defendan satu Kemudahan Pembiayaan Peribadi di bawah Skim Pembiayaan Peribadi (Tawarruq-I) - Gratuiti dengan amaun pembiayaan sebanyak RM81,000-00 sebagai harga belian Plaintif dan RM119,272-51 sebagai harga jualan Plaintif kepada Defendan. 6. Selaras Surat Tawaran Plaintif, satu Memorandum Penerimaan berkenaan amaun pembiayaan dan terma-terma dan syarat-syarat Kemudahan Pembiayaan tersebut ditandatangani oleh Defendan pada 13 Februari, 2012. 7. Seterusnya, bayaran ansuran bulanan akan berubah mengikut perubahan pada kadar keuntungan sehingga 6.75%. Bayaran ansuran bulanan akan dilakukan melalui potongan terus dari Akaun Gaji/Pencen di Bank Plaintif. Bayaran pertama berkuat kuasa pada bulan ketiga daripada tarikh pengeluaran pembiayaan. 8. Defendan telah memungkiri terma-terma dalam Perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut apabila telah gagal untuk membayar ansuran bulanan seperti yang telah dipersetujui walaupun Plaintif telah beberapa kali membuat tuntutan. 9. Akibat keingkaran Defendan untuk mengemas kini atau membayar jumlah yang tertunggak tersebut, Plaintif melalui Peguam caranya Tetuan Tengku Sulaiman & Associates menghantar satu Notis Tuntutan dan Penamatan bertarikh 19 Mac, 2019 kepada Defendan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Notis tersebut1') di antara lain:- a) Plaintif menuntut daripada Defendan jumlah yang tertunggak sebanyak RM119,272-51 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ansuran tertunggak tersebut) setakat 19 Mac, 2019 dalam masa 14 hari dari notis tersebut. b) Jika Defendan gagal, cuai dan/atau ingkar untuk membayar jumlah ansuran tertunggak tersebut, Plaintif akan menamatkan Kemudahan Pembiayaan tersebut dengan serta merta dan menuntut Defendan membayar keseluruhan baki Kemudahan Pembiayaan tersebut. 10. Defendan telah gagal membayar jumlah ansuran tersebut dan Plaintif telah menamatkan Kemudahan Pembiayaan tersebut dengan serta merta melalui notis tersebut dan menuntut Defendan membayar keseluruhan baki kemudahan Pembiayaan tersebut sebanyak RM119,272.51 setakat 19 Mac, 2019. 11. Walau bagaimanapun Defendan masih gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai untuk menjelaskan jumlah yang dituntut atau sebahagian daripadanya. 12. Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif menuntut daripada Defendan seperti berikut:- a) Wang berjumlah sebanyak RM119,537.16 dikira setakat 15 April, 2019; b) Defendan hendaklah membayar caj lewat bayar dengan cara ta'widh (gantirugi) bersamaan dengan kadar sernasa semalaman harian Pasaran Wang Antara Bank Secara Islam ke atas jumlah asas penghakiman dikira dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh: c) Kos-Kos tindakan ini; dan d) Seterusnya atau lain relif Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini sifatkan sesuai dan diperkenankan. 13. Pada 23.5.2019, satu Penghakiman Ingkar Kehadiran telah direkodkan terhadap Defendan untuk jumlah wang sebanyak RM119,537.16 setakat 15.4.2019 berserta kos sebanyak RM986.00. 14. Alasan Permohonan Selepas Penghakiman tersebut diperoleh, Plaintif tidak hanya mendiamkan diri daripada haknya ke atas Penghakiman tersebut. Kelewatan untuk meneruskan tindakan perlaksanaan adalah disebabkan untuk memberi peluang kepada Defendan untuk menjelaskan hutangnya dahulu namun Defendan telah gagal berbuat demikian. 15. Setakat 18.11.2025, Defendan masih terhutang dengan Plaintif sebanyak RM121,343.92. 16. Defendan masih gagal melunaskan hutangnya walaupun telah diberikan tempoh yang munasabah. 17. Kelewatan ini adalah tidak disengajakan dan tidak memprejudiskan Defendan kerana hutang tersebut masih belum dijelaskan sehingga kini. 18. DAPATAN MAHKAMAH Aturan 46 Kaedah 1 (1) (a) menyatakan bahawa penghakiman yang diperoleh selepas 6 tahun tidak boleh dilaksanakan tanpa kebenaran Mahkamah. When leave to issue any writ of execution is necessary (O. 46, r. 2) 2. (1) A writ of execution to enforce a judgment or order may not be issued without the leave of the Court in the following cases: (a) where six years or more have lapsed since the date of the judgment or order; 19. Tatacara untuk mendapatkan kebenaran Mahkamah bagi mengeluarkan writ pelaksanaan boleh didapati dalam Aturan 46 Kaedah 3 sebagaimana berikut: 3. Application for leave to issue writ (O. 46, r. 3) (1) An application for leave to issue a writ of execution may be made ex parte by a notice of application in Form 88. (2) Such an application shall be supported by an affidavit— (a) identifying the judgment or order to which the application relates and, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money, stating the amount originally due thereunder and the amount due thereunder at the date of the application; (b) stating, where the case falls within rule 2(1)(a), the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order; (c) stating, where the case falls within rule 2(1)(b), the change which has taken place in the parties entitled or liable to execution since the date of the judgment or order; (d) stating, where the case falls within rule 2(1)(c) or (d), that a demand to satisfy the judgment or order was made on the person liable to satisfy it and that he has refused or failed to do so; and (e) giving such other information as is necessary to satisfy the Court that the applicant is entitled to proceed to execution on the judgment or order in question and that the person against whom it is sought to issue execution is liable to execution on it. 20. Plaintif telah membuat permohonan ini secara ex-parte. Oleh sebab itu, Plaintif mempunyai beban untuk memuaskan hati Mahkamah bahawa apa yang digariskan oleh Aturan 46 Kaedah 3 ini dipatuhi. 21.Pihak Plaintif dalam afidavit sokongan perlu menjelaskan jumlah asal yang terhutang serta jumlah terkini hutang semasa permohonan ini dibuat. Pada masa yang sama, Plaintif perlu menjelaskan kelewatan pihak Plaintif untuk melaksanakan penghakiman yang diperoleh dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. 22. Dalam kes Affin Bank Bhd v. Wan Abdul Rahman bin Wan Ibrahim [2003] 1 CLJ 826, Arifin Zakaria HMR (pada masa tersebut) telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: "It is trite that the grant of leave under O. 46 r. (2) is in the court's discretion. Order 46 r. 3 states that an application under O. 46 r. 2(1) must be supported by an affidavit stating, when the case falls within r. 2(1)(a), the reasons for the delay in enforcing the judgment or order. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the applicant to furnish the court with sufficient reason in support of such an application. What is sufficient reason? This naturally will vary from case to case. It is not possible for this court to provide an exhaustive list of what is considered to be sufficient reason. In the instant case, the fact that the application was made within the 12-year period as prescribed by s. 6(3) of the Limitation Act 1953 was not a sufficient ground for the granting of leave as the right to sue on a judgment is distinct from the right to issue execution (see p 512B-E). Although the only reason advanced by the appellant in support of its application was the neglect of its former solicitors, the appellant was not free from blame, having taken more than two years to appoint new solicitors after failing to hear from its former solicitors. The Court of Appeal would agree with the High Court that the appellant had failed to furnish sufficient reason." 23. Dalam kes Lim Kian Liong V. Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad [2023] CLJU 2013 Hakim Mohd Radzi Harun telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “[12] The authorities had established that the affidavit supporting an application for leave under O. 46 r. 2(2), (3) and O. 46 r. 3 must state: (i) the date of judgment; (ii) the amount of the original debt; (iii) the amount remaining due; and (iv) the causes of delay. [13] Apart from the above, the Respondent must show to the satisfaction of the Court that it is entitled to execution ie, no change of parties or devolution of interest and that the application must be filed within a reasonable time. [14] Having perused the evidence as shown in the Record of Appeal, I am satisfied that the Respondent's affidavit supporting its application for leave at the Court below had shown that it is entitled to the execution in that there was no change of parties or devolution of interest occurred vis-a-vis the JID Order. The Respondent's affidavit also had clearly stated the date of judgment, the amount of the Appellant's original debt and the amount remaining due against the Appellant. [15] But did the Respondent sufficiently explained its 10-month delay in filing the leave application? At the outset, this Court disagrees with the Appellant's calculation of the 10-month delay (calculated between the last date the Appellant made payment (09.04.2021) to the date of filing of leave application at the Sessions Court (28.02.2022). The 6-year period lapsed on 15.12.2021. As such the last date of payment on 09.04.2021 was well within the 6-year and cannot be taken into the calculation. [16] This Court agrees with the Appellant that the Respondent has the obligation to explain the causes of delay, which comprises the following 2 tiers: i. 1st tier is the Respondent shall explain the causes of delay in executing the judgment within the 6- year period; and; ii. 2nd tier is the Respondent shall explain the causes of delay if an application for leave is not filed within a reasonable time after that 6 years lapsed. ... [26] However, the Respondent had failed to explain what happened between August 2021-December 2021 (5 months) that resulted in it not proceeding with the execution of the Judgment against the Appellant, a mandatory requirement under O. 46 r. 3(2)(b)” 24. Alasan utama pihak Plaintif untuk tidak melaksanakan penghakiman ini adalah kerana memberi peluang kepada pihak Defendan untuk menjelaskan bayaran. 25. Namun begitu, dalam afidavit sokongan, pihak Plaintif gagal menjelaskan apakah tindakan yang dilakukan oleh pihak Plaintif dalam mendapatkan bayaran daripada pihak Defendan. 26. Adakah pihak Defendan telah membuat sebarang bayaran selepas menerima sesalinan penghakiman bertarikh 23.5.2019 ini? Bilakah bayaran oleh pihak Defendan dibuat dan bilakah kali terakhir bayaran dilakukan oleh pihak Defendan? 27. Tempoh 6 tahun berakhir pada 22.5.2025. Plaintif sepatutnya telah menunjukkan sebarang tindakan yang telah diambil atau apakah perkara yang menyebabkan kes ini dihentikan sementara sehingga tempoh 6 tahun tersebut terakhir. 28. Mahkamah telah merujuk kepada ekshibit NF-2 iaitu penyata akaun. Penyata akaun tersebut menunjukkan jumlah penghakiman, kos dan juga kadar ta’with. Tiada bayaran diterima daripada pihak Defendan. 29. Pihak Plaintif jelasnya telah gagal menjelaskan kelewatan untuk pihaknya mengambil sebarang tindakan pelaksanaan sehingga tempoh 6 tahun telah berakhir. 30. Pihak Plaintif juga hanya memfailkan permohonan ini setelah tempoh 6 tahun berakhir dan juga tidak menjelaskan alasan permohonan ini lewat difailkan. 31. Dalam kes CIMB Bank Berhad V. Teratai Sanjung (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2019] CLJU 132, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “[11] By the terms of Order 46 rule 2(1)(a), delay can be countenanced by the court provided the appellant could offer valid and sufficient reason(s) for the delay. In Ratnam v. Cumarasamy & Anor [1964] CLJU 237; [1964] 1 LNS 237; [1965] 31 MLJ 228 Lord Guest delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council made the following observations: "The Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken there must be some material upon which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose of the rules which is to provide a time table for the conduct of litigation." 32. Dalam kes Khor Cheng Wah v. Sungai Way Leasing Sdn Bhd [1997] 1 CLJ 396 Gopal Sri Ram HMR (pada masa tersebut) telah menyatakan di muka surat 229: "It is a cardinal principle of law, that when a litigant seeks the intervention of the court in a matter that affects his rights, he must do so timeously. The maxim vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, though having its origins in the Court of Chancery, is of universal application. Even in cases where a right is exercisable ex debito justitiae, a court may refuse relief to an indolent litigant.” 33. Dalam kes Moez Ali bin Akbarally v. Public Bank Bhd [2021] MLJU 1028 Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: [31] We found merit in the respondent’s submission that the respondent only need to show the court sufficient reasons in support of the application to explain the delay in proceedings with the execution and/or bankruptcy proceedings against the appellants. Here we must emphasise that so long as the applicant for leave provide some plausible reasons in support for leave to execute after a lapse of six years then leave ought to be given, after all a judgment could not be defeated unless it is time barred. We must also state that laches must not apply in the process of execution of a judgment. What we have stated here is plain from a reading of O 46 r 2(3) of the ROC 2012 which provides that the court has the power to give fresh leave if no execution is taken after a lapse of a year after the leave is given. Here we can see that the court’s task is to ensure that there must be some reason for the delay.” 34. Mahkamah berpendapat Plaintif telah mengambil masa yang terlalu lama untuk mengambil sebarang tindakan. Plaintif dalam tempoh 6 tahun yang ada tidak mengambil sebarang bentuk pelaksanaan bagi penghakiman yang telah diperoleh. 35. Dalam kes Tio Chee Hing v. Chung Khiaw Bank [1981] 1 MLJ 227, Mahkamah Persekutuan mendapati bahawa penjelasan pihak Responden (pemiutang penghakiman) mengenai kelewatan untuk melaksanakan penghakiman adalah diterima pakai. Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan sebagaimana berikut: “The reasons for the delay were given by one Mr. Wong Theen Foot, the manager of the respondent Bank's Brandi at Sandakan, in the affidavit in support of the application for leave. It was explained that after judgment had been entered, there were negotiations for settlement by arrangement. At that time, the appellant was making substantial payment by instalments towards another judgment sum in Civil Suit No. 250 of 1968 and clearly any further pressure on him would jeopardise the settlement of this debt without producing any favourable result in the satisfaction of the new claims. The Bank, perhaps not unreasonably, had hoped that so long as the appellant would be making his monthly or periodical payments, it might be in its own interests to give him time to pay off his debts to the Bank. Insofar as the land charged to the Bank was concerned, it was thought that sale by private treaty would fetch a higher sum, especially as the land was without potential for development. But as events showed, other creditors bad also obtained various judgments against the appellant and had taken execution proceedings. It was time for the Bank to act in respect of these two judgment sums which had been entirely unsatisfied.” 36. Mahkamah berpendapat tindakan Plaintif ini sebenarnya telah memberikan prejudis yang lebih besar kepada pihak Defendan. Ini kerana pihak Plaintif telah memeram kes Defendan ini dan telah gagal mengambil sebarang tindakan selama ini. 37. Plaintif bukan sahaja telah gagal untuk meyakinkan Mahkamah alasan kelewatan pihak Plaintif untuk melaksanakan sebarang bentuk pelaksanaan seperti tindakan “garnishee” atau saman hutang penghakiman yang mana pada pendapat Mahkamah adalah lebih ringkas dan mudah. Plaintif juga boleh mengambil tindakan kebankrapan sekiranya perlu berdasarkan jumlah penghakiman yang telah pun diperoleh. 38. KESIMPULAN Secara keseluruhannya, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa permohonan Plaintif ini bukanlah satu tindakan yang bona fide dan merupakan satu pemikiran terkemudian (aftertought). Pihak Plaintif telah gagal menjelaskan sebab-sebab yang munasabah tindakan pelaksanaan gagal dibuat dalam tempoh 6 tahun yang ada. 39. Plaintif menunggu dan mengambil masa terlalu lama untuk memfailkan tindakan ini dan memberikan penyata akaun yang sangat ringkas yang menunjukkan tiada tindakan diambil oleh pihak Plaintif selama ini. 40. Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas, setelah Mahkamah menimbang dan mengambil kira kesemua kertas kausa berkaitan, Mahkamah atas imbangan kebarangkalian menolak Notis Permohonan Plaintif [Lampiran 7] tanpa kos memandangkan Lampiran 7 ini merupakan permohonan ex-parte. Bertarikh: 11.1.2026 Wan Nor Aklima binti Wan Salleh Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil Kuala Terengganu Terengganu Peguam cara bagi pihak Plaintif : Nik Faizal Bin Abdullah Tetuan Tengku Sulaiman & Associates] Peguam cara bagi pihak Defendan : Tiada