Section 33(1) of the Government Proceedings Act allows judicial discretion and does not obligate the court to issue enforcement certificates in every case.

Introduction

[1] The question of law, which seems to be a novel question, in the present matter regarding certificate under s 33(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 involves four-fold legal issues, namely:

(a) what is the rationale behind s 33(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ;

(b) whether the said s 33(1) puts the Government in worse position than a private entity as judgment debtor;

(c) whether the said s 33(1) makes it mandatory for the Court to issue the s 33(1) certificate irrespective of the circumstances of the case; and

(d) if the answer to issue (c) is in the negative, what are the factors and criteria to be considered when dealing with an application for the said s 33(1) certificate.

[2] On 8 December 2022, this Court was of the view that both issues (b) and (c) should be answered in the negative and after having considered the entire circumstances of the matter, this Court dismissed the judgment creditor's application for the said s 33(1) certificate with liberty to file afresh, if expedient, after the Federal Court's clarification and/or decision on two miscellaneous question which arose out of the federal Court's order for assessment of damages.

[3] The subject-matter here is the Plaintiff-judgment creditor's application for a certificate under s 33(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 to allow her to execute the balance of the judgment sum against the 5th Defendant (Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang or the Land Administrator of Klang District) and the 6th Defendant (Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan or the Selangor Registrar of Titles) after they have already been paid RM6,996,566.67 which constitutes about two-thirds of the total judgment sum this Court ordered the 5th Defendant (Land Administrator), the 6th Defendant (Registrar of Titles) and the 7th Defendant (Sheelan Arjunan, advocate and solicitor) to the Plaintiff- judgment creditor.

[4] The total judgment sum awarded by this Court in the Judgment dated 29 July 2021 after the assessment of damages pursuant to the Federal Court's judgment is comprised of (a) RM10,319,850.00 being the market value of the subject land (payable by 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants); (b) RM85,000 as party-to-party costs of action (payable by 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants); (c) RM10,000.00 costs of assessment of damages (payable by 5th and 6th Defendants); RM20,000.00 (payable by the 7th Defendant).

[5] The 5th and 6th Defendants (respectively the Land Administrator and the Registrar of Titles) have already paid to the Plaintiff RM6,996,566.67 which constitutes about two-thirds of the total judgment sum, while there is no evidence that the Plaintiff has received from the 7th Defendant (advocate and solicitor) or has actively and diligently pursued execution of judgment or part thereof against the 7th Defendant (advocate and solicitor).

[6] In the present matter, it is undisputed that the Government Proceedings Act 1956 applies to the 5th and 6th Defendants, being public officers employed by the State Government of Selangor.

Background Events

[7] The judgment which the Plaintiff herein sought to obtain s 33 certificate under the Government Proceedings Act for leave to enforce the balance judgment against the State governmental bodies is a judgment dated 29 July 2021 resulting from this Court's assessment of damages.

[8] This Court's said assessment of damages was carried out in pursuance of and in implementation of the judgments and orders of the Federal Court in the consolidated appeals which originated from one High Court suit.

[9] The original High Court suit is Shah Alam High Court Writ of Summons No MT2-21-136-2007,