A garnishee order requires the Judgment Creditor to prove the indebtedness of the garnishee to the Judgment Debtor; failure to provide sufficient evidence invalidates the order.

JUDGMENT

Celestina Stuel Galid J:

Introduction

[1] The present appeal is by the Judgment Debtor ("JD") against the decision of the Magistrates' Court in granting the Garnishee Order Absolute dated 29 September 2023 wherein the 2nd Garnishee, Maybank Islamic Berhad was ordered to pay to the Judgment Creditor ("JC") the sums of RM8,635.97 and RM31,330.54 and the 5th Garnishee, Ambank Islamic Berhad, the sum of RM22.00.

The Proceedings In The Court Below

[2] The JC had earlier on 8 March 2023, inter alia, obtained a judgment against the JD before the Magistrates' Court in the sum of RM62,248.25 and interest thereon.

[3] The JC thereafter applied for and obtained a Garnishee Order to Show Cause dated 21 June 2023 for the purpose of executing the said judgment.

This Court 's Decision

[4] It is pertinent to first consider the applicable statutory provision that is O 49 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012"). It provides that:

"(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 person (who is referred to as "the judgment debtor" in this Order), not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into Court , and any other person within the jurisdiction (who is referred to as "the garnishee" in this Order), is indebted to the judgment debtor, the Court may, subject to the provisions of this Order and of any written law, order the garnishee to pay the judgment creditor the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee, or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy that judgment or order and the costs of the garnishee proceedings."

[5] The importance of establishing that the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor is illustrated in the Court of Appeal case of Tiong Hoo Teck v. Wong Ho Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors; [2014] 4 MLJ 398. There, the judgment creditor merely averred in his affidavit in support the following:

"4. To the best of my information and belief that the second and third defendants ('the said garnishees') are indebted to the said judgment debtor based on the financial statement filed by the first defendant with Companies Commission for the period end 31 October 2008, the second and third defendants herein are owing to the said judgment debtor. Pages 9-10, 20-21 of the said financial statement report are now produced and exhibited herewith marked P2."

[6] The senior assistant registrar in that case allowed the application but on appeal to the High Court , the garnishee order was set aside on the ground that the garnishee order was not precise enough for any debts due or accruing due to the garnishees because the sums or amount due from them were not set out nor ascertained in the order. The High Court referred to Forms 98, 99 and 100 which are the garnishee order to show cause, affidavit in support of garnishee order and garnishee order respectively and held that these forms or documents require the amount due and owing from the garnishee to the debtor to be stated therein. The High Court held that this was so that the amount to be garnished or attached can be ascertained. However, the High Court found that the judgment creditor did not comply with these. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

[Also see RT Telecom Sdn Bhd v. Telefleet Trading Group Sdn Bhd ; Permodalan Risda Bhd (Garnishee); [2020] 5 AMR 737].

[7] Much like the judgment creditor in Tiong Hoo Teck (supra), the JC in the present case merely stated the following in his affidavit in support of the application:

"7. To the best of my information and belief, the JD maintains an account or accounts with the abovenamed Garnishee which is/are within the jurisdiction of this Court ."

[8] In addition, both the 2nd and 5th Garnishees neither opposed nor took part in the proceedings. The Record of Appeal does not include any affidavits filed by the 2nd and 5th Garnishees.

[9] The question for