STAY OF EXECUTION

STOP..... I have no appeal or pending litigation proceeding(s), but ‘without a stay of execution’ it will be rendered nugatory.

The Plaintiff obtained a Judgment from the Session Court to evict the Defendant from the Premises within seven (7) days from the date of the Judgment (“Judgment”). The Defendant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the Session Court Judgment; therefore, the Defendant filed an application to appeal to higher courts. The Defendant’s appeal applications was dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff proceeded with an application to obtain a Writ of Possession (“Execution Proceeding”).

The Defendant was given one (1) month to vacate the Premises; nonetheless, instead of vacating the Premises, the Defendant served on the Plaintiff an Application to Stay the Execution Proceeding (“Stay of Execution”) on the exact date the Defendant was to vacate the Premises pursuant to the Bailiff’s Notice, i.e desperately hitting the “PAUSE” Button.

Amongst others, the Defendant prayed for :-

1. an ad interim Stay of Execution order until this Application for Stay of Execution is decided by this Honourable Court, wherein the ad interim Stay of Execution order was granted to the Defendant by the Honorable Court; and

2. an order to Stay the Execution Proceeding until the Defendant and the Third-Party(ies) initiates a legal proceeding against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant submitted that an Order for a Stay of Execution shall be granted to the Defendant to preserve the status quo of the Defendant, failing which the Defendant and the Third Party(ies) will be prejudiced IF the Third Party(ies) and the Defendant are successful in a suit that MAY BE filed on a future date.

It shall be noted that, :-

1. after the High Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal with costs, the Defendant did not make any attempt to file an application to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, or take any action to preserve or defend the Defendant's alleged and concocted rights;

   
   

2. the Third-Party who filed an affidavit to support the Defendant’s application is not a party to this proceeding or a party to the suit initiated by the Plaintiff by way of Writ of Summons in the Session Court; and

   
   

3. as of the date the Defendant's Application for a Stay of Execution is dismissed, neither the Defendant nor the Third Party(ies) initiated any legal proceeding against the Plaintiff.

In a nutshell, the Plaintiff amongst others submitted that :-

1. the Judgment of the Session Court is final, and the Defendant have already exhausted his appeal process within the court system[1];

   
   

2. since there is no appeal, it is absurd to say that ‘without a stay’ the appeal might be rendered nugatory[2];

   
   

3.  the Third Party is not whom the Judgement of the Session Court is granted against[3];

   
   

4. no cogent and/or reasonable justification provided by the Defendant for this Court to suspend the right of the successful party to the fruits of her litigation[4]; and

   
   

5. the Defendant's Application for Stay of Execution is an abuse of the court's process[5] and if the Defendant's application is allowed, "Justice, the very soul of the profession would pay the price..."

The Honourable Session Court dismissed the Defendant's Application for a Stay of Execution with costs.

..........

[1] LING PEEK HOE & ANOR -v- DING SIEW CHING AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2017] 5 MLJ 385 (FC)

[2] CHONG WOOI LEONG & ORS -v- LEBBEY SDN BHD (NO 2) [1998])

[3] ORDER 45 RULE 11 RULES OF COURT 2012

[4] CHONG WOOI LEONG & ORS -v- LEBBEY SDN BHD (NO 2) [1998] 2 MLJ 661

[5] JASA KERAMAT SDN BHD -v- MONATECH (M) SDN BHD [1999] 4 MLJ 637