1. ) FIMA BULKING SERVICES BERHAD 2. ) FIMA PALMBULK SERVICES SDN. BHD. 3. ) FIMA BUTTERWORTH INSTALLATION SDN. BHD. v KAZHOU PTE. LTD. PENCELAH 1. ) Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia 2. ) NUTRA LIPIDS (M) SDN. BHD. PIHAK YANG MENUNTUT 1. ) K.I.S RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 2. ) Excel Criterion Sdn. Bhd

wa-37ws-96-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 July 2025 • WA-37WS-96-09/2024

Catchwords

Abstract MPOB appealed the dismissal of its application to intervene in execution proceedings and stay a Writ of Seizure and Sale against Used Cooking Oil (UCO) it had seized in 2020. The judgment creditors sought to execute their default judgment for unpaid storage costs. MPOB applied to intervene one day before execution, claiming the UCO required preservation for criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding: (1) execution proceedings lack jurisdiction for intervention applications; (2) MPOB failed to establish legal interest, having only commercial interests; (3) procedural violations including wrong timing and forum; and (4) MPOB was estopped by contradictory conduct, having previously attempted to sell the same UCO in 2021. The Court held that post-judgment intervention undermines litigation finality and no special circumstances warranted staying execution. Keywords Execution proceedings, post-judgment intervention, stay of execution - Order 15 Rule 6, Order 17, Order 47 Rule 1 - Writ of Seizure and Sale - contradictory conduct - abuse of process

Practice Areas

Abstract MPOB appealed the dismissal of its application to intervene in execution proceedings and stay a Writ of Seizure and Sale against Used Cooking Oil (UCO) it had seized in 2020. The judgment creditors sought to execute their default judgment for unpaid storage costs. MPOB applied to intervene one day before execution, claiming the UCO required preservation for criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding: (1) execution proceedings lack jurisdiction for intervention applications; (2) MPOB failed to establish legal interest, having only commercial interests; (3) procedural violations including wrong timing and forum; and (4) MPOB was estopped by contradictory conduct, having previously attempted to sell the same UCO in 2021. The Court held that post-judgment intervention undermines litigation finality and no special circumstances warranted staying execution. Keywords Execution proceedings, post-judgment intervention, stay of execution

Judges (1)

Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi Delivered

Parties (8)

Excel Criterion Sdn Bhd Claimant FIMA BULKING SERVICES BERHAD Plaintiff FIMA BUTTERWORTH INSTALLATION Sdn Bhd Plaintiff FIMA PALMBULK SERVICES Sdn Bhd Plaintiff K.I.S RESOURCES Sdn Bhd Claimant KAZHOU PTE. LTD Defendant Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia Intervener Nutra Lipids Sdn Bhd Intervener

Case Significance

1. ) FIMA BULKING SERVICES BERHAD 2. ) FIMA PALMBULK SERVICES SDN. BHD. 3. ) ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 3, 2025 (citation: wa-37ws-96-09-2024). The case was decided by Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi.

Key issues: Execution proceedings, post-judgment intervention, stay of execution - Order 15 Rule 6, Order 17, Order 47 Rule 1 - Writ of Seizure and Sale - contradictory conduct - abuse of process.

What was the outcome of 1. ) FIMA BULKING SERVICES BERHAD 2. ) FIMA PALMBULK SERVICES SDN. BHD. 3. ) ...?

1. ) FIMA BULKING SERVICES BERHAD 2. ) FIMA PALMBULK SERVICES SDN. BHD. 3. ) ... is a High Court decision dated July 3, 2025. The case was heard by Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi. See the full judgment for details.