EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD v NOBLE ENERGY (M) SDN BHD
Catchwords
Introduction 1. The Plaintiff applied to auction off the properties charged to it by the Defendant in executing a Judgment against IHME LCC (“the Borrower”). The application by way of an Originating Summons was made under section 256 and 257 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) as well as Orders 31, 31A and 83 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). Cause to the contrary 6. A large part of the Defendant’s affidavit is dedicated to putting the Plaintiff to strict poof which in the Court’s view have been satisfied. Part of the rest of the affidavit by the Defendant consists of bare denial. 7. The only cause to the contrary discernable from the affidavit of the Defendant is first, that the charge on the properties of the Defendant being a 3rd party charge was illegal and unenforceable under the law. 8. Secondly the charge was in a nature of a guarantee and therefore any order for sale must be preceded by an application for leave as the Defendant was not a party to the judgment. 9. The only averment in rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s application for order for sale is that the Borrower had satisfied the court judgment which was concealed by the Plaintiff. However, no evidence was adduced to support this rebuttal. 10. In the Court’s view none of the factors above constitute “cause to the contrary”. The provisions in the National Land Code do not prohibit 3rd party charges. A whole chapter is dedicated to charging of land as well as the effect thereof under Part 16 of the National Land Code. 11. The procedure to enforce the charge is also clearly spelled out and in this case the Court is satisfied that the procedure has been complied with. The necessary documents have been properly prepared and served on the Defendant. The Defendant’s contention otherwise is unsubstantiated or supported and is a merely a bare statement to thwart the sale. Conclusion 12. As the Defendant has failed to show any cause to the contrary the Court allows the Plaintiff’s application.
Practice Areas
Introduction 1. The Plaintiff applied to auction off the properties charged to it by the Defendant in executing a Judgment against IHME LCC (“the Borrower”). The application by way of an Originating Summons was made under section 256 and 257 of the National Land Code (“NLC”) as well as Orders 31, 31A and 83 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). Cause to the contrary 6. A large part of the Defendant’s affidavit is dedicated to putting the Plaintiff to strict poof which in the Court’s view have been satisfied. Part of the rest of the affidavit by the Defendant consists of bare denial. 7. The only cause to the contrary discernable from the affidavit of the Defendant is first, that the charge on the properties of the Defendant being a 3rd party charge was illegal and unenforceable under the law. 8. Secondly the charge was in a nature of a guarantee and therefore any order for sale must be preceded by an application for leave as the Defendant was not a party to the judgment. 9. The only averment in rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s application for order for sale is that the Borrower had satisfied the court judgment which was concealed by the Plaintiff. However, no evidence was adduced to support this rebuttal. 10. In the Court’s view none of the factors above constitute “cause to the contrary”. The provisions in the National Land Code do not prohibit 3rd party charges. A whole chapter is dedicated to charging of land as well as the effect thereof under Part 16 of the National Land Code. 11. The procedure to enforce the charge is also clearly spelled out and in this case the Court is satisfied that the procedure has been complied with. The necessary documents have been properly prepared and served on the Defendant. The Defendant’s contention otherwise is unsubstantiated or supported and is a merely a bare statement to thwart the sale. Conclusion 12. As the Defendant has failed to show any cause to the contrary the Court allows the Plaintiff’s application.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD v NOBLE ENERGY (M) SDN BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated September 2, 2025 (citation: wa-24fc-164-01-2025). The case was decided by Akhtar bin Tahir.
Key issues: Introduction.
What was the outcome of EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD v NOBLE ENERGY (M) SDN BHD?
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD v NOBLE ENERGY (M) SDN BHD is a High Court decision dated September 2, 2025. The case was heard by Akhtar bin Tahir. See the full judgment for details.