Only a proportional amount of a joint judgment can be garnished from a single debtor unless expressly stated otherwise.

(Enclosure 16 - Garnishee Proceedings)

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal to judge in chambers (encl 45) filed by the appellant (the appellant is referred to as the "plaintiff/pemiutang penghakiman" in the intitulement) against the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision dated 1 March 2015 (encl 52) which ordered that the appellant's application for a garnishee order to be made absolute (encl 16) be dismissed. In the same decision, the Senior Assistant Registrar also ordered the appellant to pay costs of RM1,000.00 to the respondents.

[2] The appellant sought for a garnishee order pursuant to O 49 of the Rules of 2012 against only the 1st respondent's money which was kept in the garnishee bank, CIMB Bank Berhad.

[3]The appellant's appeal was heard before me, and on 21 February 2015, I disallowed the appellant's appeal. The appellant is not satisfied with my decision and has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. This judgment serves as the reason for my decision.

The Main Issue

[4] This case has a chequered history, and I do not wish to dwell into the history of it. In order to appreciate the appellant's appeal, it is suffice to state that the appellant wanted to enforce a judgment on costs which was awarded by the High Court (by a previous judge) against eleven respondents in a Court order dated 19 August 2013. The 1st respondent is one of the eleven respondents, and in the midst of the proceedings, the 11th respondent passed away.

[5] The main issue before me is: Whether the appellant could garnish only the 1st respondent's money kept in the garnishee bank in order to satisfy the whole judgment costs of RM6,500.00 awarded to the appellant in the Court order dated 19 August 2013 where the Court order does not state that the respondents are jointly and severally liable for the costs.

[6] If the answer is in the negative, the appellant's appeal should fail.

[7] The relevant part of the judgment dated 19 August 2013 states as follows:

"...MAKA DENGAN INI ADALAH DIHAKIMI bahawa RAYUAN (Kandungan-11) ADALAH DIBENARKAN dengan KOS Ringgit Malaysia RM5,000.00 kepada Perayu, dan Ringgit Malaysia RM1,500.00 sebagai KOS Rayuan ini, dibayar oleh Responden-Responden".

Note: the Perayu in the judgment is the appellant here.

The Finding Of This Court

[8] I refer to the judgment of Varghese George JC (as his Lordship then was, now Judge of the Court of Appeal) in the case of In Re Dato' Dr Elamaran M Sabapathy ; Ex P RHB Bank Berhad, [2011] 10 CLJ 262, 268, wherein his learned Lordship states as follows:

"In the absence of the judgment spelling out expressly that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, the judgment there has, as in the ordinary course, to be a judgment imposing joint liability or obligation on the three defendants to meet the judgment sum together[emphasis added]. In such event the JD's obligation is only one-third the amount of the judgment sum and not as set out in the bankruptcy notice, or for that matter in the creditor's petition.

A similar issue had arisen in the case of Yeo Ah Wang lwn. UMBC Bhd , [1995] 1 AMR 38 and Shaik Daud, J (as he then was) held there that where the judgment had been obtained against all three defendants and there were jointly liable, the notice of bankruptcy could not be issued against one defendant only based on that whole of the judgment sum."

[9] Applying the above legal proposition, which I fully agree with, to the present case, the appellant could not enforce the whole judgment costs of RM6,500.00 only against the 1st respondent by seeking a garnishee order to garnish the 1st respondent's money kept with the garnishee bank.

[10] The respondents are jointly liable for the judgment costs of RM6,500.00 with the other responden