Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation period (limitation act 1953)

Legal area

Court

29 Oct 2025

Shahrel Azizi bin Saad Harun bin Ramli

Citation

KA-22NCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence (the executed SPA, payment acknowledgment, possession, registered Power of Attorney and charge, and the Defendant's admissions) that the transaction was a sale, the deceased was the beneficial owner, and the Plaintiff's claim to recover trust property is not barred by limitation under section 22 Limitation Act 1953; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim was allowed and the Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
8 Oct 2025

PUNITHA A/P PADATHALY 1. ) SALAM ALLIANCE SDN BHD 2. ) DR.MOHD IQBAL BIN MOHD ARBA

Citation

BA-23NCvC-40-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-23NCvC-40-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The applications to strike out were dismissed because the limitation defence and causation/confidentiality/vicarious liability allegations raise bona fide, fact‑sensitive triable issues (including applicability of Section 29 concealment) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; the Statement of Claim on its face discloses a tenable cause of action and the matters require oral evidence and expert proof.
21 Jan 2025

TETUAN KHAMDAN & CO. (mendakwa sebagai sebuah firma) KHAIRULLINA CAROLINE ABDULLAH

Citation

BA-A72NCvC-858-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A72NCvC-858-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court struck out the plaintiff's action because the claim for excess fees was time‑barred under the Limitation Act 1953 (cause of action accrued on first excess payment in August 2017), constituted an abuse of the court's process and was estopped by the prior proceedings (res judicata); accordingly the striking out application under O.18 r.19 was allowed and costs awarded against the plaintiff.
2 May 2024

Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-36-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Acknowledgement by Plaintiff's letter dated 15.3.2007 restarted the limitation period so CIMB's foreclosure proceedings were within time; Plaintiff failed to invoke exclusive appeal remedy under s.418 NLC and cannot collaterally attack the Land Administrator's Order for Sale in this suit; gazettement alone did not bar the Order for Sale or auction because acquisition did not vest until Form K/memorial and formal possession; compensation award to the bidder who had fully paid was valid; no proximity existed to impose a duty of care on valuers to the Plaintiff and the valuation methodology was…

Malaysia Case Law

Shahrel Azizi bin Saad Harun bin Ramli

PUNITHA A/P PADATHALY 1. ) SALAM ALLIANCE SDN BHD 2. ) DR.MOHD IQBAL BIN MOHD ARBA

TETUAN KHAMDAN & CO. (mendakwa sebagai sebuah firma) KHAIRULLINA CAROLINE ABDULLAH

Adzhar Bin Mohd Nordin 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 3. ) STIGMA EMAS SDN BHD 4. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 5. ) Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah & Galian (JKPTG) PIHAK KETIGA Landserve Sdn Bhd