In this case both parties were entered into leasing agreement. As regard to the agreement, the respondent were stated as lessor while appellant as lessse. Thus, the appellant was defaulted in payment for areas of rent and the payment for leasing of the equipment. Eventhough, the respondent were given several notice and warning for defaulted payment the appellant still failed to pay. Therefore, the respondent were taking back the printing equipment unfortunately the appellant were not given permission and not allowed the respondent to take back the printing equipment. By reason of that, the respondent filed an application for mandatory injunction.
2. Issues of Law :
a. Whether the Court has a discretionary power to issue mandatory injunction on an ex parte application b. Whether the respondent have a right to possess the equipment
3. Judgment :
a. The Court has a discretion to grant mandatory injunction before trial but the injunction will only be granted for an extremely rare case and also for ex parte application the court will grant only if it is an urgency case. The crucial thing that must be infered from the fact of the case, by granting immediate injunction it will be just and equitable to the plaintiff, otherwise it will only result to irreparable injury and inconvenience.
b. The court approve that there was a leasing agreement and not loan agreement by reason that it was clearly stated in the affidavit and evidence. Therefore, the respondent has a right to possess back the equipment, by reason that the respondent was the owner of the equipment. This is refered to clause 16 of the agreement that clearly mention the respondent was the owner of the equipment.
4. Ratio Decidendi :
a. Wah Loong ( Jelapang) Tin Mine Sdn Bhd v Chia Ngen Yiok b. Sivaperuman v Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd :
The principle laid down in both cases mandotary injunction only be granted in...