JUDGMENT

Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC:

Introduction

[1] This case involves a Shariah-compliant financing arrangement between Maybank Islamic Berhad ("the plaintiff") and C & L Minerals Sdn Bhd ("D1"). The facilities were extended to D1 and secured by personal guarantees from its two directors, Choo Ken Lon ("D2") and Teng Ai Leng ("D3"). The Plaintiff contends that D1 has defaulted on repayment and now applies for summary judgment on the basis that its claims are clear and undisputed. The defendants oppose the application, contending that genuine legal and factual issues exist which should be tried. This judgment considers whether those issues amount to triable matters or whether summary judgment ought to be granted.

Background Facts

[2] D1 was the customer of the Plaintiff bank, who had applied for the financing of its quarry and building supplies business. By three (3) separate letters of offer dated 6 April 2020, 15 June 2022, and 15 February 2022, the plaintiff extended the following Facilities:

(a) A Commodity Murabahah Term Financing-i (CMTF-i) facility of RM1,000,000.00 under Account No 46342-601200; and

(b) A trade-related facility (LC-i/TR-i/BG-i/IF-i) for the sum of RM1,000,000.00 and RM500,000.00 under Account No 564342-635723.

(See Exhibit A-1 of encl 22)

[3] In consideration of the aforesaid Facilities to D1, D2 and D3, the directors and shareholders of D1 stood as guarantors based on three (3) letters of guarantee dated 9 April 2020, 12 February 2021 and 19 June 2022 (see Exhibit A-3 of encl 22) ("the said Letters of Guarantee ")

[4] On 11 September 2023, the plaintiff issued a demand requiring D1 to regularise the outstanding sums. In response, D1, by its letter of the same date (Exhibit A-7 of encl 24), reaffirmed its commitment to the facility terms and expressed its intention to regularise the overdue accounts. Despite this assurance, the 1st Defendant failed to honour its undertaking and did not regularise the accounts as promised.

[5] Subsequently, by letter dated 20 March 2024, the plaintiff agreed to a rescheduling arrangement, allowing staggered payments with reduced instalments for February to March 2024, increased payments from April to July 2024, and a further review to be undertaken in July 2024 (Exhibit A-4 of encl 22).

[6] D1, however, again defaulted in making payment. The facilities were thereafter terminated by the plaintiff's letter of 25 October 2024 (Exhibit A-5 of encl 22). As at 30 September 2024, the sums outstanding stood at RM1,029,255.79 under CMTF-i, and RM858,970.87 and RM514,127.29 under LC-i/TR-i/BG-i/IF-i facilities, together with further late payment charges (tawidh).

[7] The Plaintiff filed this Writ and Statement of Claim against the defendants on 25 November 2024. By way of this application in Enclosure 21 which was filed on 10 April 2025, the plaintiff sought from the defendants the outstanding sum of RM2,400,409.39 which comprises the following:

a) The sum of RM1,010,333.91 as at 28 February 2025 with the applicable tawidh under the CMTF-i facility;

b) The sums of RM869,591.37 and RM520,484.11 as at 28 February 2025 with the applicable tawidh under the LC- i/TR-i/BG-i/IF-i facility; and

d) costs of the application.

[8] A certificate of indebtedness dated 28 February 2025 was issued confirming the aforesaid amounts due, exhibited as A-6 in encl 22.

[9] Upon hearing both parties on 15 August 2025, this Court allowed the plaintiff's application and awarded costs of RM4,000.00.

Issues

[10] The application addresses the following issues:

a) Whether the plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirement of summary judgment application ('Procedural Requirement'); and

b) Whether the defendants have successfully raised genuine disputes of material fact that require a trial. ('Defendants Showing Cause).

A. Procedural Requirement

[11] The initial matter for the Court 's consideration is whether the requisite preconditions for granting summary judgment have been duly satisfied. In National Company for Foreign