[1] The appellant/Garnishee appeal is against the decision of the learned trial judge who had after full trial in a garnishee proceeding held that the Garnishee is liable to pay the respondent/Garnishor the sum of RM3,179,014.47 etc; and ordered the garnishment order nisi to be made absolute.

[2] It is not in dispute that the learned trial judge had taken the position that the burden of proof to prove that there is no debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor (JD) lies with the Garnishee, notwithstanding the Garnishor did not provide any particulars on his belief. Such an approach may not be correct in law. (See Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Berhad , 2016 MarsdenLR 1998 ). The learned trial judge to arrive at the proposition had relied on the following cases, namely: (i) Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v. RHB Bank Berhad , ; (ii) DIG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Precise Solution Sdn Bhd; Jenama Evolusi Sdn Bhd (Garnishee); (iii) Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd v. Senali Construction Works Sdn Bhd & Anor; [1991] 3 CLJ 439.

[3] The learned counsel for the appellant asserts that the legal burden remained on the Garnishor and not the Garnishee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document