Public Bank Berhad v Kok Kon Sang (BA-24FC-553-06/2024)

RM35,052.50 under the RM50,000.00 Fixed Loan (Account No. 2-1384066-21) with interest accruing at 6.7% + Base Rate at daily rests

RM41,244.89 under the RM50,000.00 Fixed Loan (Account No. 2-1434767-17) with interest accruing at 6.7% + Base Rate at daily rests

RM268,859.54 under the RM220,000 Overdraft (Account No. 3-1747083-22) with interest accruing at 6.7% + Base Rate at daily rests The Plaintiff’s Base Rate was stated to be 3.25% p.a. and subject to change. [3] The Defendant was unrepresented and had been previously declared a vexatious litigant not once, but twice, in:

KL High Court Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-1904- 06/2022 [Institut Akauntan Malaysia v Kok Kon Sang] dated 4- 12-2023

KL High Court Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-1212- 03/2024 [CIMB Bank Malaysia Berhad v Kok Kon Sang] dated 16-7-2024] and is barred from commencing further legal proceedings in any Court in Malaysia except with the leave of the High Court of Malaya. These orders were duly gazetted (“Order and Notification of Vexatious Litigant”). [4] When this matter first came up for hearing before me on 20-2-2025, there were various letters, a notice to attend pre-trial case management and 2 pending interlocutory applications filed by the Defendant, the substance of which were difficult to decipher. The Defendant’s papers were filed with random references to law and did not conform to the requirements of the Rules of Court 2012. For identification purposes, the 2 applications may be loosely described as follows:

Notice of Application dated 14-10-2024 (Enclosure 10), which sought to strike out the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of the

Notice of Application dated 17-2-2025 (Enclosure 45), whichsought to stay these proceedings pending disposal of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2127- 12/2024 The appeal in question related to the Order and Notification of Vexatious Litigant from the proceedings with CIMB Bank Berhad. [5] In the light of the terms of the Order and Notification of Vexatious Litigant, this Court informed the Defendant in no uncertain terms on 20-2- 2025 that the applications in Enclosures 10 and 45 would not be heard until he sought permission, but in the interest of justice, the Court would hear him on any cause to the contrary why an order for sale should not be made on the Originating Summons. Further, this Court allowed a postponement of the hearing of the Originating Summons so that the Defendant could be prepared. [6] The Originating Summons was heard on 27-2-2025. The proceedings were complicated by the Defendant’s unfamiliarity with and/or disregard of the rules of civil procedure. He also claimed to be literally hard of hearing. The Defendant did not understand and/or refused to acknowledge the supplementary affidavits filed by the Plaintiff in these proceedings to update the amount of the indebtedness and the affidavits of service of the same with each postponement of the hearing of the Originating Summons. [7] On 27-2-2025, the same plethora of allegations raised on 20-2-2025 were repeated and fresh allegations were made about the conduct of counsel for the Plaintiff. The Defendant further declared that he would not apply for leave to file Enclosures 10 and 45 or any further legal proceedings so that he would not be deemed to have accepted the Order and Notification of Vexatious Litigant. [8] In the circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the Originating Summons. As it turned out, the same allegations cited as grounds for Enclosures 10 and 45 were repeated. As far as this Court could discern from the Defendant’s affidavits, the causes to the contrary asserted by the Defendant may be summarized as follows: A. Disputes on the debt

interest was debited on his accounts during the Covid- 19 Movement Control Order

there were other unauthorized debits on his accounts B. Inadmissibility of the charge

the charge and facilities agreement dated 5-5-2005 are inadmissible evidence because there were no or insufficient stamp duty paid C.

the Plaintiff breached the terms of the Facility Agreement in declining to give further advances and terminating the facilities

the Defendant has a RM500,000 counterclaim against the Plaintiff for defamation, loss of business opportunities and a false CCRIS Reports to Bank Negara Malaysia D. Money laundering and cheating

auctioning the Property valued at RM3.8 million for recovery of the disputed debt meant that the Plaintiff was money laundering and cheating E. Other allegations

the Plaintiff filed many offensive documents for the hearing on 20-2-2025

the Plaintiff’s counsel took undue advantage of his hearing handicap

the deponent of the Plaintiff’s affidavit did not have a Power of Attorney [9] The alleged causes to the contrary were dismissed for the following reasons: A. Disputes on the debt It was not seriously disputed that the Defendant was in default on the facilities and owed the Plaintiff a debt. It is trite that unless manifest error can be shown, the Court may rely on the Plaintiff’s certificate of indebtedness. In any event, this is not a suit for recovery of a debt but a statutory in rem action on a registered charge. As such, disputes on errors in the quantum of the debt are not causes to the contrary, but are issues that may be pursued in separate proceedings (Siong Holdings Sdn Bhd v Development & Commercial Bank Berhad [1997] 1 MLJ 340). B. Admissibility of the charge The non-stamping of a document does not invalidate the document unless the non-stamping of it goes to the root or validity of the document itself (Malayan Banking Bhd v Agencies Service Bureau Sdn Bhd & Ors [1982] 1 MLJ 198; Omega Securities Sdn Bhd v Dato' Hamzah bin Abdul Majid [2011] 8 MLJ 12 at 29 to 30). In this case, this Court was also satisfied that the Charge was sufficiently assessed and stamped at RM10 because it is an auxiliary document under Schedule 1, Item 27 of the Stamp Act 1949 and had also been presented and accepted at the Land Office. C. Counterclaim The Defendant’s allegation that the Plaintiff had acted in breach of contract or tortiously, while it may give rise to an independent action in personam, is also insufficient per se to defeat the ad rem rights of a chargee under his registered charge to an order for sale (Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 77 at 87). In any event, the allegations appeared to be frivolous and vexatious as the terms of the agreement that govern the facilities expressly stipulate that the Plaintiff may make further advances to the Defendant at its discretion but on terms and the Plaintiff was not obliged to do so or to afford any other accommodation or facilities to the Defendant. As it related to the Defendant’s blacklisting as a defaulter, it was not demonstrated that the CCRIS report is untrue. [10] The other allegations did not merit a response but for completeness, this Court could find no fault in the conduct of these foreclosure proceedings by the Plaintiff or its counsel; the Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit, supplementary affidavits and affidavits of service were properly filed; no power of attorney is required to auction the Property in the enforcement of a registered charge; and the setting of the reserve price for the auction of the Property will be carried out according to due process in a judicial sale and any balance of proceeds in excess of the debt owed to the Plaintiff would accrue to the Defendant - there is accordingly no issue of money laundering or cheating. [11] Ultimately, the Defendant’s disputes in other proceedings that culminated in the declarations that he is a vexatious litigant and the consequences thereof were irrelevant to the present proceedings. This Court had given the Defendant sufficient latitude to show cause to the contrary why an Order for Sale should not be granted and the Defendant failed to show any legitimate cause. Accordingly, orders were made as prayed for in the Originating Summons with costs of RM5,000.00. The Defendant’s oral application for a stay of execution was also dismissed. Bertarikh : 9 April 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam Untuk Plaintif: Lim Jia Wing, Tetuan Shook Lin & Bok Defendan: Tidak diwakili