CHE RAHMAH BINTI ABDULLAH v KHAIRUL AZLAN BIN ABDUL HALIM

Case Significance

Confirms that a judgment does not become unenforceable after six years: execution remains available with the leave of the court, and a judgment creditor who acts promptly after the event relied on will not be defeated by laches.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an attempt to set aside an order permitting the execution of a consent judgment more than six years after it was entered, and it clarifies the interaction between limitation, laches and the leave to execute. The parties had recorded a consent judgment in February 2016 relating to the sale of a property. The plaintiff later obtained an ex parte order allowing enforcement of that consent judgment even though more than six years had elapsed. The defendant applied to set that order aside, relying on Order 32 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012, which permits the court to set aside an order made ex parte, and on Order 92 rule 4, which preserves the court's inherent power to prevent injustice or an abuse of process.

The defendant's grounds were essentially two: that the plaintiff's application to enforce the judgment breached the law of limitation because it was made after the lapse of six years, and that enforcement should be disallowed on the principle of laches. The court found both grounds misconceived. On limitation, it held that the Rules clearly allow the execution of a judgment after the lapse of six years, provided the leave of the court is first obtained — so the passage of time did not bar enforcement but merely added a procedural requirement, which had been met. On laches, the court found the doctrine inapplicable because the plaintiff had made the application soon after the property was sold by auction, so there had been no relevant delay.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the leave to execute the consent judgment, with costs of RM2,000. The judgment illustrates that a judgment does not become unenforceable merely because six years have passed: execution remains available with the leave of the court, and a plaintiff who acts promptly will not be defeated by laches.