Chailease Berjaya Credit Sdn. Bhd. v 1. ) Muhammad Syamsul Ariffin Bin Amat (WA-A72NCC-1036-01/2025)

MUHAMMAD SYAMSUL ARIFFIN BIN AMAT

SITI SHAHIRAH BINTI MOHD NOH (NO. K/P: 941016-10-5048) … Judgment Debtors

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

REGION FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. (NO. PENDAFTARAN: 199401003768 / 289447-T) … Garnishees

Background The Judgment Creditor (“JC”) obtained judgment against the Judgment Debtors (“JD”) in the sum of RM29,999.69 as at 28 February 2025. Pursuant to this judgment, the JC filed a Notice of Application (Ex Parte) dated 28 March 2025 under Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012 seeking, inter alia: a) That a garnishee order be issued against the Garnishees to show cause why they should not pay to the JC the judgment sum of RM29,999.69 together with interest and costs; b) That the order, upon being made absolute, shall operate as an attachment of any monies due or accruing due from the Garnishees to the JDs; and c) Specifically in respect of the second Garnishee (“G2”), that 50% of the net monthly salary of JD1 (after statutory deductions) be deducted and paid directly to the JC on a continuing basis until full satisfaction of the judgment sum.

On 21 April 2025, this Court issued a Garnishee Show Cause Order directing the Garnishees to appear and show cause. Affidavits and written submissions were subsequently filed. The JC contends that wages payable by G2 to JD1 fall within the meaning of “debt due or accruing due” under Order 49 ROC 2012, whereas G2 disputes the application insofar as it relates to future salary.

Issues for Determination Having considered the Notice of Application dated 28 March 2025, the affidavits in support and in reply, as well as the written submissions and reply submissions filed by the parties, the Court identifies the following issues for determination:

3.1) Whether wages payable by the Second Garnishee to JD1 fall within the meaning of “any debt due or accruing due” under Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012.

3.2) Whether a garnishee order may validly operate on a continuing basis against future wages without the need for fresh applications each month.

3.3) Whether the statutory framework permits and limits such deductions.

Submissions of the parties

Judgment Creditor (JC) 1) The JC submits that the present application is properly brought under Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012, read together with section 3(1)(f) of the Debtors Act 1957 and section 24(8) of the Employment Act 1955. These provisions expressly permit the attachment of wages of a judgment debtor where such wages exceed RM200 per month, subject always to the statutory cap of 50% of the net wages earned in that month.

4.2) In its Notice of Application dated 28 March 2025 and supporting affidavit, the JC prays for a continuing order that 50% of the net monthly salary of JD1 (after statutory deductions) be deducted by G2 and paid directly to the JC until full satisfaction of the judgment sum of RM29,999.69.

In support of the application, the JC advances the following legal arguments:

5.1) Statutory Framework The combined effect of s.3(1)(f) Debtors Act and s.24(8) Employment Act demonstrates clear legislative intent to permit garnishment of wages, subject to the protective limitation of a 50% cap.

5.2) Accruing Debt Principle The JC relies on the Court of Appeal decision in Flextronics Technology (M) Sdn Bhd v Bumicircuit Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 813, where the Court held that debts payable in the future pursuant to contractual credit terms were nonetheless “accruing due” once the obligation had arisen. By analogy, the obligation of an employer to pay salary arises as soon as services are rendered under a subsisting contract of employment. Salary is therefore a recurring debt accruing monthly, and not a contingent liability.

5.3) Acknowledged and Ascertained Debt The JC also relies on Maybank Islamic Bhd v WWE Holdings Bhd [2017] 4 MLJ 339 , where the Court of Appeal upheld a garnishee order once a debt had been acknowledged, even though payment was to be made at a later date and despite parallel counterclaims. In the present case, the acknowledgment of JD1’s employment and salary by G2, supported by payslips, constitutes sufficient evidence of an ascertained and enforceable debt.

5.4) Construction of “Money Due or Payable” The JC further cites the Court of Appeal in Kinu Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia (JKR) [2025] 5 MLJ 152, which stressed that the phrase “money due or payable” must be interpreted substantively and that statutory rights cannot be negated by contractual terms. The JC submits that this principle applies equally here, where the obligation to pay wages arises under both statute and contract and falls squarely within the ambit of Order 49.

5.5) Finally, the JC emphasises that the relief sought is balanced and fair: deductions are confined to 50% of the net salary after statutory deductions; the order operates only for so long as JD1 remains employed by G2; and the obligation ceases automatically upon termination of employment, without prejudice to the JC’s right to apply afresh against any new employer.

Judgment Debtors (JDs)

6.1) The JDs did not file any substantive opposition to the JC’s application. Their position is reflected indirectly through the affidavit of G2, which confirms that JD1 remained in the employment of G2 as at the date of filing of the Notice of Application (28 March 2025) and as at the date of the Show Cause Order (21 April 2025).

6.2) The payslip exhibited by G2 shows that JD1’s net salary, after statutory deductions, amounted to RM1,010.84 as at 21 April 2025. Beyond this, no affidavit in opposition or written submissions were filed by the JDs to challenge the relief sought by the JC.

Second Garnishee (G2)

7.1) G2 resists the JC’s application beyond the amount of salary accrued as at 21 April 2025. In its affidavit and written submissions, G2 advances the following arguments: a) Limitation to accrued salary G2 submits that only the sum of RM1,010.84, being the net wages accrued by JD1 as at 21 April 2025, is subject to garnishment. It argues that wages for subsequent months are not yet due and therefore fall outside the scope of Order 49. b) Future salary is contingent G2 contends that future salary payments are contingent upon continued employment and are subject to variations such as unpaid leave, suspension, or salary advances. On this basis, future wages cannot be classified as “debts due or accruing due”. c) Reliance on Federal Court authority G2 relies on Malaysian International Trading Corporation v RHB Bank Bhd [2016] MLJU 13, submitting that only debts existing at the date of the garnishee order may be attached. It argues that future wages are contingent and therefore excluded by the reasoning of the Federal Court. d) Claim for costs In addition, G2 seeks costs in the sum of RM300 for the filing of its affidavit, pursuant to Order 59, Appendix, Part IV: Miscellaneous, paragraph 2(a) of the Rules of Court 2012. G2 submits that such costs should be deducted from the first sum garnished from JD1’s wages.

Findings of the Court Having scrutinised the Notice of Application dated 28 March 2025, the affidavits, as well as the written and oral submissions advanced by the parties, this Court now sets out its findings.

8.1) Employment status and accrued salary It is not in dispute that JD1 was in the employment of G2 at the material times, namely the date of filing of the Notice of Application (28 March 2025) and the date of the Show Cause Order (21 April 2025). This fact is supported by G2’s own affidavit and documentary evidence in the form of payslips. The payslip exhibited indicates that JD1’s net salary after statutory deductions amounted to RM1,010.84 as at 21 April 2025. This Court finds that the said sum constitutes a debt which had already accrued by that date. There can be no serious dispute that it is immediately subject to garnishment. However, the real controversy lies beyond this sum, namely whether wages payable in the future months are also susceptible to attachment.

8.2) Whether future wages are contingent or accruing debts? The Garnishee contends that future wages are contingent in nature, as they are dependent upon the continuation of employment and may be affected by events such as unpaid leave or suspension. On this footing, it argues that such wages fall outside the scope of Order 49 ROC 2012. This Court has considered the submission with care. Whilst this Court accepts that future wages are not yet payable at the present time, this Court is unable to agree that they are properly characterised as contingent debts. The distinction between “contingent debts” and “debts accruing due” was carefully analysed by the Court of Appeal in Flextronics Technology (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Bumicircuit Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd. In that case, the Court explained that once an obligation has arisen, even if payment is deferred, it remains a debt accruing due. By contrast, a contingent debt is one that arises only upon the occurrence of an uncertain event, which may or may not happen. Applying this reasoning, this Court finds that wages payable to JD1 under his subsisting contract of employment cannot be said to be contingent. The obligation to pay salary is a continuing one, arising from the moment services are rendered. Payment may be made at a later date, but the obligation itself is fixed. This Court therefore concludes that wages fall squarely within the category of debts accruing due.

8.3) On the Garnishee’s reliance on MITC case G2 relies heavily on Malaysian International Trading Corporation v RHB Bank Bhd for the proposition that only debts due at the time of the order may be attached. This Court has examined that authority. With respect, the reliance is misplaced. MITC concerned a situation where the alleged debt was wholly dependent upon the occurrence of an uncertain future event. The Federal Court rightly described that obligation as contingent and not susceptible to attachment. Wages, however, are of a different character. So long as the contract of employment subsists, the obligation to pay salary arises by operation of law and contract. It is not dependent on speculation or on events that may never occur. This Court is therefore of the considered view that MITC is distinguishable on its facts and does not preclude the attachment of wages as debts accruing due.

8.4) Interpretation of “money due or payable” The phrase “money due or payable” must be construed substantively and purposively. The Court of Appeal in Kinu Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia (JKR) underscored that statutory entitlements cannot be negated by contractual limitations. This Court finds that the reasoning in Kinu is directly applicable. The obligation to pay wages arises under statute, namely the Debtors Act 1957 and the Employment Act 1955, and under the contract of service between G2 and JD1. To construe “money due or payable” narrowly so as to exclude wages payable in future months would unduly restrict the reach of garnishee proceedings and frustrate the legislative purpose. This Court therefore rejects the Garnishee’s narrow interpretation.

8.5) Acknowledgment of debt It is also instructive to consider the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Maybank Islamic Bhd v WWE Holdings Bhd which held that once a debt has been clearly acknowledged, it may be attached notwithstanding that payment is deferred or that parallel claims exist. In the present case, G2 has expressly confirmed JD1’s employment status and has produced documentary evidence of his wages. This Court finds that such acknowledgment suffices to establish the existence of an enforceable debt. The Court therefore rejects G2’s submission that the debt is too uncertain. On the contrary, the obligation to pay salary is ascertainable and recurring, and therefore amenable to garnishment.

8.6) Practical objections of the Garnishee The Garnishee has raised practical concerns that the amount of salary payable may vary due to unpaid leave, suspension or advances. This Court acknowledges the possibility of such variations. However, upon scrutiny, these matters go only to the quantum payable in a given month. They do not negate the underlying obligation to pay wages. The garnishee order sought is confined to 50% of the net wages actually payable after statutory deductions in each month. This formulation is sufficiently flexible to accommodate fluctuations in salary and ensures fairness to both employer and employee. This Court therefore finds this objection unpersuasive.

8.7) Statutory safeguards Finally, this Court notes that Parliament has provided express safeguards in relation to the attachment of wages. Section 3(1)(f) of the Debtors Act 1957 permits the attachment of wages exceeding RM200. In tandem with this, section 24(8) of the Employment Act 1955 imposes a statutory cap whereby the total deductions from an employee’s wages in any one month shall not exceed 50% of the wages earned. This Court finds that the garnishee order sought, being confined to 50% of JD1’s net monthly wages after statutory deductions, is consistent with both statutory frameworks. These provisions strike a careful balance between the enforcement rights of the judgment creditor and the protection of the judgment debtor’s livelihood.

Conclusion For the reasons set out above, this Court is satisfied that the Judgment Creditor has established its entitlement to the relief sought. The objections raised by the Second Garnishee, though carefully considered, do not withstand scrutiny. This Court finds that wages payable under a subsisting contract of employment constitute “debts due or accruing due” within the meaning of Order 49 of the Rules of Court 2012. In the circumstances, this Court makes the following orders:

The Garnishee Order is hereby made absolute.

The Second Garnishee (G2) shall deduct 50% of the net monthly salary of JD1, after statutory deductions, and pay the same directly to the Judgment Creditor. Such deductions shall continue each month until full satisfaction of the judgment sum of RM29,999.69 (as at 28 February 2025), subject always to section 3(1)(f) of the Debtors Act 1957 and section 24(8) of the Employment Act 1955.

This order shall remain in force only for so long as JD1 remains in the employment of G2. Should the employment relationship cease, the obligation of G2 under this order shall terminate automatically, without prejudice to the Judgment Creditor’s right to apply afresh against any new employer.

This Court is further of the view that G2, having filed its affidavit and appeared to show cause, is entitled to modest costs. Accordingly, costs of RM300 are awarded to G2, pursuant to Order 59, Appendix, Part IV: Miscellaneous, paragraph 2(a) of the Rules of Court 2012. Such costs shall be deducted from the first garnished sum. Dated: 14th August 2025 ……sgd……