Back
2015 MarsdenLR 861
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AMBANK (M) BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
E-CENIT SYSTEMS SDN BHD & ORS; MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD & ORS (GARNISHED PARTIES).... – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCC-32-02/2015]
Garnishee proceedings can validly involve multiple garnishees under a single application, despite procedural irregularities regarding separate orders.
Headnote:The Appellants appealed against a dismissal of their application to set aside a Garnishee Order. The court found no merit in the Appellants' claims regarding the strictness of garnishee proceedings under O 49 r 1 RC 2012, affirming the order was valid without the need for separate applications for each garnishee. The appeal is dismissed, with costs awarded against the Appellants.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
Garnishee proceedings can involve multiple garnishees under a single application, even if there are procedural irregularities related to separate orders for each garnishee (!) (!) .
-
The Court affirmed that a garnishee order takes effect from the date of the judgment or order, and there is no requirement for a prior letter of demand before commencing garnishee proceedings (!) (!) .
-
It is not necessary to file separate applications for each garnishee; a single application can include multiple garnishees, provided that the garnishee orders to show cause are drawn up separately for each garnishee (!) (!) .
-
The wording in the garnishee order must be precise and clear, but lumping multiple garnishees into one application does not automatically invalidate the proceedings, especially if the application and orders comply with procedural rules (!) (!) (!) .
-
Procedural irregularities, such as not filing separate applications for each garnishee, are not necessarily fatal to the validity of garnishee proceedings, as the rules allow for a single application with separate orders for each garnishee (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the debt must be due or accruing due at the time of the garnishee order and must be identifiable; debts that are unascertained or not yet payable do not invalidate the garnishee order, provided the application correctly states the debts owed (!) (!) .
-
The specific sums owed by the judgment debtors, including interest and costs, were clearly identified in the proceedings, reinforcing that the application was substantively valid (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The appeal by the judgment debtors was dismissed because the court found no merit in their claims regarding procedural strictness, and the garnishee order was affirmed as valid (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification on any specific point.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of garnishee order appeal and judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observations on garnishee proceedings and prerequisites. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedural validity of garnishee order. (Para 4 , 5) |
[1] Vide A Notice of Appeal to a Judge in Chambers dated 13 August 2015 (encl 36) the Appellants/Judgment Debtors have appealed against the learned SAR's decision on 6 August 2015 in dismissing the Appellants/Judgment Debtors' application to set aside the Garnishee Order To Show Cause dated 3 July 2015 (encl 7) ('Garnishee Order To Show Cause') entered pursuant to O 49 r 1 Rules of 2012 ('RC 2012').
[2] The background facts leading to the said appeal against the learned SAR's decision are these. On 16 June 2015 the Court entered summary judgment against the Defendants for the following sums due, owing and payable on Facilities availed and granted to E-Cenit Systems Sdn Bhd, the 1st Appellant/Judgment Debtor and guaranteed by the 2nd - 5th Appellants/Judgment Debtors as follows:
(i) the sum RM377,547.36 due and owing as at 15 January 2015 on the BA No T80714FBA1671601 issued on the 1st Appellant/Judgment Debtor's Bankers Acceptance Facility together with further interest from 16 January 2015 to the date of full and final realisation at 4% per annum above the Respondent/Judgment Creditor's Base Lending Rate (6.85% per annum) on the Principal Sum outstanding as prescribed and imposed pursuant to the terms and conditions upon which the Facilities were availed.
(ii) the sum of RM404,081.80 due and owing as at 15 January 2015 in respect of the Overdraft Facility availed to the 1st Appellant/Judgment Debtor together with further interest continuing from 16 January 2015 at 3.5% per annum above the Respondent/Judgment Creditor's Base Lending Rate (6.85% per annum) until the date of realisation at daily rests as prescribed and imposed pursuant to the terms and conditions upon which the Facilities were availed.
(iii) the sum of RM595,910.80 due and owing as at 15 January 2015 in respect of the Term Loan Facility availed to the 1st Appellant/Judgment Debtor together with further interest continuing from 16 January 2015 at 1.20% per annum + 1% per annum above the Respondent/Judgment Creditor's Base Lending Rate (6.85% per annum) until the date of realisation at daily rests as prescribed and imposed pursuant to the terms and conditions upon which the Facilities were availed.
(iv) costs of RM5,000.00.
2.1. Despite the said Judgment dated 16 June 2015 and the Respondent/Judgment Creditor's solicitor's letter dated 26 June 2015, the Appellants/Judgment Debtors continued to fail, neglect and/or refuse to make payment of the Judgment Sum and the Respondent/Judgment Creditor commenced these Garnishee Proceedings against the Appellants/Judgment Debtors and Garnishees above-named.
2.2. A Garnishee Order to Show Cause dated 3 July 2015 ('the Garnishee Order') was entered by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar for all monies due and/or payable or accruing due and/or payable by the Garnishees above-named, as set out in Jadual A to the said Garnishee Order, to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Appellants/Judgment Debtors and the same stood attached to answer the 16 June 2015 Judgment and costs of these Garnishee Proceedings. The Registrar fixed the Garnishee Order to Show Cause for further hearing on 6 August 2015.
2.3. The Appellants/Judgment Debtors did thereafter on 14 July 2015 file a Notice of Application dated 14 July 2015 ('Application') to set aside the said Garnishee Order and the same was also fixed for hearing on 6 August 2015.
2.4. On 6 August 2015, the learned Registrar dismissed the Defendants' Setting Aside Application and proceeded to hear the Garnishee Order to Show Cause. Hence this appeal by the Appellants/Judgment Debtors.
[3] Order 49 r 1 RC 2012 states:
"(1) Where a person (who is referred to as "the judgment creditor" in this Order) has obtained a judgment or order for the payment of money by some other
