Sunday, April 18, 2010

High Court says BBA rebates ‘must be granted’


by Habhajan Singh

Islamic banks 'must grant' a rebate even if the Bai Bithaman Ajil (BBA) contract is silent on the issue when a default occurs, ruled a recent High Court judgment.

The judgment, in four BBA cases heard together by High Court Judge Datuk Rohana Yusuf, brings to the fore an issue that has been a bone of contention for consumers making avail of Islamic home financing as Islamic banks deem rebate, or ibrar as it is known in Arabic, as discretionary. Consumers, on the other hand, would want more certainty in that matter.

"In doing so, the bank should not be allowed to enrich itself with an amount which is not due while at the same time taking cognisance of the customer’s right to redeem his property.

"Therefore where the BBA contract is silent on issue of rebate or the quantum of rebate, by implied term I hold that the bank must grant a rebate and such rebate shall be the amount of unearned profit as practiced by Islamic banks," she wrote in a 29-page judgment dated Jan 28 in Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Azhar Bin Osman, and three other cases. She also noted that legal documentations used by Islamic banks in financing should specify a formula for rebate, which at the moment is loosely attached to the principle loan agreement and whose implementation is very much left to bank's discretion.

In the judgment, Rohana touched on the issues of ibrar and the quantum that banks can claim in an event of a default, two areas that have seen some debate and discussion from the Shariah perspective.

"If the documents of the banks had in fact specified a formula of rebate or ibrar, it will demystify the intricacies of a BBA transaction. It will be easily understood by the customer who would then not be put in the dark as to what is ibrar and what would be the amount of ibrar he should be receiving," she said.

The judgment seems to suggest that Rohana has taken a different tack from a recent Court of Appeal decision on a bundle of BBA contract cases which originated from the much publicised April 2008 decision by High Court Judge Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail, while maintaining that she is still within the bounds of what constitutes a binding decision from the higher courts.

"This is quite a departure form some of her earlier judgments," said lawyer Mohamad Illiayas Seyed Ibrahim who has dealt extensively in Islamic finance cases.

Ibrar, one of the two issues at the heart of this judgment, means surrendering one’s right of claim over debt either partially or in full, according to the definition from a published document by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) which regulates Islamic finance outfits.

Ibrar had been a bone of contention with consumers as banks generally do not give them a specific guarantee that they are entitled to a rebate should their loan end prematurely, either due to early payment or a default.

The path pursued by Rohana, in this judgment, seems to push local Islamic banks to insert the ibrar clause explicitly into their financing documents, thus bringing about certainty to the issue of rebate and also streamlining the practice with what is already approved by BNM's Shariah Advisory Council (SAC).

Rohana ruled that "when an Islamic bank practices granting of rebate on a premature termination, it creates an implied term and legitimate expectation on the part of the customer. Accordingly it is only proper that such expectation and practice be read into the contract."

The central bank's SAC — which has the last say on matters pertaining to Shariah in Islamic finance as further reinforced in newly promulgated central bank regulations — had resolved in 2002 that 'Islamic banking institution may incorporate the clause on undertaking to provide ibra’ to customers who make early settlement in the Islamic financing agreement on the basis of public interest (maslahah)'.

The four cases in this judgement came from two sets of appeal before the Court of Appeal relating to BBA contracts in Islamic banking. The plaintiff in all the four cases was Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd (BIMB) who were represented by Oommen Koshy from Skrine & Co and Aedyla Bokari from Nassir Hafiz Nazri & Rahim.

In the first set involving 12 cases heard together, the Court of Appeal had decided on Aug 26, 2009 [Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad v Lim Kok Hoe & Anor and Other Appeals] that a BBA contract is valid and enforceable, thus reversing an earlier decision of the High Court in Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v Taman Ihsan Jaya Sdn Bhd & Ors.

The Taman Ihsan Jaya case made headlines when Abdul Wahab had ruled that the widely used BBA contracts were contrary to Malaysia’s Islamic banking regulations. The Malaysian Reserve first broke that story on Sept 8, 2008.

(This story appeared in The Malaysian Reserve on 19 April 2010. The Malaysian Reserve is a daily business/finance newspaper published out of Kuala Lumpur, with a sectoral page on Islamic finance on Mondays, edited by Habhajan Singh)

1 comment:

dissertation thesis said...

I have been visiting various blogs for my dissertation research. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information... Regards