Arun Noval Dass TP:

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

Pengenalan

[1]Pemiutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JC) telah memperolehi dua penghakiman terhadap Penghutang Penghakiman (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai JD) di Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru pada tahun 2023.

[2]Selaras penghakiman-penghakiman tersebut, JD masih berhutang dengan JC bagi sejumlah hutang. Peguam JC telah mengeluarkan surat tuntutan bertarikh 20 Julai 2023 kepada peguam JD untuk menuntut jumlah terhutang dan merizabkan hak untuk memulakan sebarang tindakan pelaksanaan sekiranya tuntutan JC tidak dipenuhi dalam tempoh 7 hari dari tarikh surat tuntutan tersebut.

[3]Memandangkan JD tidak memenuhi tuntutan JC, JC memulakan prosiding garnisi terhadap JD. Pada tarikh bicara ex-parte yang pertama pada 10 Ogos 2023, JC telah memaklumkan Mahkamah bahawa JD tidak pernah merayu terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan tiada sebarang perintah penggantungan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi tersebut.

Analisis dan keputusan Mahkamah

[4]JC berhujah bahawa perkataan “shall” dalam Aturan 49 Kaedah 2 KKMAturan 49 Kaedah 2 memperuntukkan secara spesifik bahawa:-

“2. Application for order (O. 49 r. 2)

An application for an order under rule 1 shall be made ex parte by a notice of application supported by an affidavit in Form 98-

(a)identifying the judgment or order to be enforced and stating the amount remaining unpaid under it at the time of the application; and

(b)stating that to the best of the information or belief of the deponent the garnishee (naming him) is within the jurisdiction and is indebted to the judgment debtor and stating the sources of the deponent’s information or the grounds for his belief.”

[5]Peruntukan tersebut dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa permohonan garnisi hendaklah disokong dengan afidavit dan afidavit tersebut hendaklah mengandungi perkara-perkara yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 2(a) dan (b) tersebut. Kewujudan koma bertitik (semicolon) dan diikuti dengan perkataan “and” dalam peruntukan tersebut menunjukkan kedua-dua perkara dalam perenggan (a) dan (b) wajib dimasukkan dalam Afidavit Sokongan. Dalam hal ini, Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Barakah Offshore Petroleum Berhad & Anor v Mersing Construction Sdn Bhd & Ors

“[68] For completeness, it should also be stated that it cannot be the legislative intent that only section 368(2)(a) and (d)need be complied with when applying for a restraining order. The conditions under section 368(2)(a) to (d)need all be complied with. To hold otherwise, would do violence to the manner in which section 368(2)(a) to (d)are drafted. It would call, unjustifiably, for ignoring the fact that the conditions set out in section 368(2)(a) to (d) are cumulative, having regard to the semicolon after each subsection and the use of the conjunction “and” placed between section 368(2)(c) and (d).”

[6]Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada kes Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd v RHB Bank Bhd Aturan 49 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980in pari materia dengan Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai “KKM”), seperti berikut:-

“[30] In a nutshell, O. 49 r. 1 of the RHCentitles a successful judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment, and may require a third party who owes the JD, to pay to the judgment creditor the amount of debt due or accruing to the judgment debtor. This provision enables a judgment creditor to have the benefit of any debt owed by a third person (a ‘stranger’) to the judgment debtor to be assigned to the judgment creditor (Dictionary of Law, 4th Edn, LB Curzon, Barrister; Manitoba Law Reform Commission December 2005 p. 1).

[31] In order to take advantage of O. 49 of the RHCthe judgment creditor must have obtained a money judgment or order against a judgment debtor ie, of a decision given by a court of law or other competent tribunal, as a result of a legal proceeding therein. A judgment or order on the other hand does not include a judgment or order for the payment of money into court.

[32] The judgment creditor then