Committal proceedings can enforce compliance with monetary judgments if procedural safeguards are adhered to.

Introduction

[1] This is an application (Encl DD) brought by the Plaintiff to set aside the ex-parte order dated 15 October 2015 obtained by the Defendants granting leave to them to commence committal proceedings against the Plaintiff for alleged contempt of court.

[2] The relevant cause papers for the purpose of this application are as follows:

(i) Defendants' ex-parte notice of application dated 15 September 2015;

(ii) Defendants' supporting affidavit of Haji Akmar bin Haji Omar affirmed on 14 September 2015;

(iii) Statement pursuant to O 52 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 dated 14 September 2015;

(iv) Ex-parte order dated 15 October 2015;

(v) Defendants' notice of application dated 15 November 2015 to commence committal proceedings;

(vi) Plaintiff's notice of application dated 19 November 2015;

(vii) Plaintiff's supporting affidavit of Tang Hak Ju affirmed on 19 November 2015;

(viii) Defendant' affidavit in reply of Haji Akmar bin Haji Omar affirmed on 11 January 2016;

(ix) Plaintiff's affidavit in reply of Tang Hak Ju affirmed on 28 January 2016.

[3] After reading the written submissions filed by the parties, I heard counsel on 9 June and 13 July 2016. On 29 July 2016, I disallowed the Plaintiff's application (Encl DD). I made no order as to costs in conjunction with the Plaintiff's other application (Encl BB) that was subsequently heard on 29 July 2016 and conditionally allowed.

[4] The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with my decision in respect of the Plaintiff's application (Encl DD) and has on 11 August 2016 filed his notice of appeal to the court of Appeal.

[5] Consequently, I provide hereinbelow the grounds in support of my decision.

Salient Facts

[6] In 2003, the Plaintiff was alienated a piece of quarry land by the Defendant. The alienation was by way of a 15 year state lease with the condition that the land must be used for quarrying purposes A land title to that effect was issued to the Plaintiff.

[7] The Defendants on 24 January 2005 cancelled the aforesaid land title.

[8] The Plaintiff challenged the cancellation of the land title in the High court and the Plaintiff on 4 October 2005 obtained an order that the Defendants jointly and severally pay damages to the Plaintiff as the result of the cancellation of the land title.

[9] Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 4 October 2005, the deputy registrar on 21 September 2007 assessed the Plaintiff's damages in the amount of RM29,356,271.00 with interest at 8% per annum calculated from 24 January 2005. The Defendants appealed to the judge in chambers against the assessment of damages of the deputy registrar

[10] In the meantime, the Plaintiff on 19 September 2008 filed a judicial review application in the High court for the issuance of a certificate pursuant to s 33(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 and an order for mandamus against the Defendants to comply with the certificate.

[11] The Plaintiff obtained leave under O 53 r 3 of the rules of the High 1980 on 26 September 2008.

[12] Consequently, the registrar issued the aforesaid certificate in the following terms:

(i) the judgment sum is RM29,356,271.00;

(ii) payment of half of the judgment sum is stayed pending the disposal of the Defendants' appeal to the judge in chambers on the assessment of damages;

(iii) hence, the sum payable in accordance with the certificate is RM14,768,135.00 with interest at 8% per annum from 24 January 2005.

[13] On 19 February 2009, the Plaintiff's aforesaid application for judicial review was dismissed but the Defendants were directed to pay half the judgment sum into court pending the Defendants' appeal to the judge