Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Limitation Act 1953 as a complete code - The 2010 High Court decision in Norruhadi Omar & Ors (2010 9 MLJ 603) held that the Limitation Act 1953 is a special law and constitutes a complete code, excluding the operation of the Interpretation Acts (1948 and 1967), particularly section 54, in construing limitation periods. The Court emphasized that the limitations prescribed are mandatory and must be strictly observed unless specific exceptions apply Norruhadi Omar, p. 603.
Legal interpretation and statutory scope - Subsequent references and analyses, including by Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors, suggest that while the Act is comprehensive, it does not necessarily mean it is exhaustive or final as a complete code. Section 32 of the Act (Act 254) indicates that limitations are procedural and that the Act does not contain all provisions on limitations, implying some scope for judicial interpretation and supplementary laws Abdul Aziz Hassan, p. 784.
Comparison with UK law and evolution of limitation laws - The decision notes that the UK Limitation Acts (1939, 1980) have evolved, and Malaysia's law, modeled after English law, has maintained a strict approach, especially regarding the running of limitation periods from the date of cause of action accrual Norruhadi Omar, p. 603; Abdul Malik Ishak JCA, p. 784.
Recent judicial stance - The Court of Appeal decisions (e.g., Sabarudin Othman & Ors v. Malayan Banking Berhad, 2013) reaffirm that the Limitation Act 1953 remains good law and applicable, although it is not necessarily a complete code in the sense of being exhaustive—it is a comprehensive statutory framework but subject to judicial interpretation and supplementary legislation Abdul Aziz Hassan, p. 784.
The 2010 decision in Norruhadi Omar (2010 9 MLJ 603) correctly identified the Limitation Act 1953 as a special law and a complete code in the sense that it provides a self-contained statutory regime for limitation periods, excluding the operation of the Interpretation Acts unless expressly incorporated. However, subsequent jurisprudence and legal commentary suggest that this does not mean the Act is exhaustively comprehensive or beyond judicial interpretation. The Act is still good law and forms the primary legal framework for limitation periods, but it is understood as a comprehensive statutory scheme rather than an absolute or final code.
In summary:- The principle from the 2010 case that the Limitation Act 1953 is a complete code remains good law but should be qualified as indicating the Act's self-contained and comprehensive nature rather than an exhaustive or final law.- The Act continues to be applied strictly, with recent case law reaffirming its validity and scope, but it is not immune to judicial interpretation or supplementary legal principles.
References:- Norruhadi Omar & Ors, 2010 9 MLJ 603- Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors, 2010 3 MLJ 784- Sabarudin Othman & Anor v. Malayan Banking Berhad, 2013 5 MLJ 448
In the realm of Malaysian civil litigation, time is of the essence. The sets strict deadlines for filing claims, but a lingering question persists: Is the Principle in 9 MLJ 603 that the is a Still Good Law? This debate strikes at the heart of how courts interpret limitation periods—whether the Act stands alone as an exhaustive framework or coexists with other laws.
This blog post delves into the landmark decision of Muhamad Solleh Saarani & Anor v. Norruhadi Omar & Ors 9 MLJ 603, examines key statutory provisions, integrates insights from related cases, and assesses if this principle holds today. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or business owner navigating deadlines, understanding this nuance can prevent claims. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The case arose from a motor vehicle accident claim filed beyond the standard limitation period. The plaintiffs argued for extensions under interpretive aids like . However, the , per VT Singham J, firmly rejected this.
Crucially, the Court clarified the Act's status: The Limitation Act is and is not a by itself
. This directly counters any view of the Act as self-contained and exhaustive. Instead, it operates as a alongside others
.
The ruling emphasized:- explicitly acknowledge other limitation laws, such as the (Act 198), which may apply in place of or alongside the Limitation Act
.- Limitation periods under are mandatory and strictly enforced, with no judicial discretion to extend unless statutory exceptions apply
.
The period of limitation as contained in s 6(1)(a) of the Act is mandatory and must be strictly observed unless there are sufficient facts to bring it within the ... Act 1953
LEE KIM NOOR & ANORR vs JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG & ANOR - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.The Act's own language undermines claims of completeness:- : Applies to actions not otherwise provided for, implying gaps filled by other statutes.- : Saves operation of other limitation enactments.- : Confirms the Act does not affect special provisions in other laws
.
These provisions position the Act as a non-exhaustive regime—a that does not preclude supplementary statutes
. For instance, claims against public authorities may fall under the , potentially shortening periods to one month
MULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS - Malaya Kuala Lumpur
.Modeled on English limitation laws, the Act 1953 reformed prior complicated and obsolete rules: due to what was regarded as 'complicated and obsolete' position of the then Limitation law, an improvement was made by the enactment of the , modelled on the English Law of Limitations
THAMEEZ NISHA HASSEEM vs MAYBANK ALLIED BANK BERHAD - Federal Court Putrajaya
. Yet, unlike some UK evolutions (e.g., ), Malaysia retains a strict approach, starting periods from (e.g., date of tort)LEE KIM NOOR & ANORR vs JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG & ANOR - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.Subsequent cases reinforce that the Act is not a standalone code:- In Norruhadi bin Omar & Ors 9 MLJ 603, Seksyen 6(1)(a) hendaklah dipatuhi dengan ketat ( must be strictly complied with)
ONG BING HONG LWN. YONG CHEN LIM & SATU LAGI - Mahkamah Sesyen Melaka
.- stipulates procedural bars, but defenses must be pleaded perKIM GUAN CHOONG SDN BHD vs PENGARAH PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
BONGSOR BINA SDN BHD vs SH BUILDERS & MARKETING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.- Public authority claims remain under both the and the : The law stated in s 6(1)(a) of the bars any actions founded on contract or tort after the expiration of 6 yearsMULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS - Malaya Kuala Lumpur
.Recent commentary notes the Act's comprehensive but not exhaustive nature. For example, and interact with third-party proceedings without bypassing limits
ZULIAHA SELAMAT & ANOR vs MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT & ANOR - Malaya Muar
SHUE CHUAN TRADING SDN BHD vs GOLDEN APPROACH SDN BHD - Malaya Shah Alam
. Court of Appeal rulings, like those referencing Abdul Malik Ishak JCA, affirm strict adherence without deeming it a ''ONG BING HONG LWN. YONG CHEN LIM & SATU LAGI - Mahkamah Sesyen Melaka
.BONGSOR BINA SDN BHD vs SH BUILDERS & MARKETING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.SHUE CHUAN TRADING SDN BHD vs GOLDEN APPROACH SDN BHD - Malaya Shah Alam
.This aligns with 3 MLJ 784, where Abdul Malik Ishak JCA stressed mandatory compliance
ONG BING HONG LWN. YONG CHEN LIM & SATU LAGI - Mahkamah Sesyen Melaka
.Courts cannot condone delays absent exceptions: the Court’s duty to strike out actions
. This promotes certainty in litigation but demands vigilance.
BONGSOR BINA SDN BHD vs SH BUILDERS & MARKETING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.LEE KIM NOOR & ANORR vs JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG & ANOR - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
.For businesses, this means prompt action on claims; for plaintiffs, awareness of 6-year tort/contract limits under
MULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS - Malaya Kuala Lumpur
.No—the decision explicitly rejected the Act as a , viewing it as a open to others
. This stance endures, as later cases apply it strictly without expansion to exclusivity. While comprehensive for general claims, it's not exhaustive, accommodating supplementary regimes for flexibility and precision
.
Recent analyses qualify it as a self-contained scheme for prescribed periods but subject to judicial scrutiny and other laws—good law in its rejection of completeness.
The remains a cornerstone of Malaysian law, but 9 MLJ 603 clarifies it's not a . Its principles—mandatory timelines, no general discretion—persist, ensuring predictability while allowing statutory interplay.
Key Takeaways:- File within limits; courts won't extend casually.- Review sections 3, 30, 33 for overlaps.- Cite precedents like 9 MLJ 603 for strict interpretation.
Stay proactive on deadlines to avoid bars. For tailored advice, engage legal professionals.
References:-
Muhamad Solleh Saarani & Anor v. Norruhadi Omar & Ors 9 MLJ 603.-
,
,
LEE KIM NOOR & ANORR vs JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG & ANOR - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
,ONG BING HONG LWN. YONG CHEN LIM & SATU LAGI - Mahkamah Sesyen Melaka
,KIM GUAN CHOONG SDN BHD vs PENGARAH PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN PULAU PINANG & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
,BONGSOR BINA SDN BHD vs SH BUILDERS & MARKETING SDN BHD - Court Of Appeal Putrajaya
,THAMEEZ NISHA HASSEEM vs MAYBANK ALLIED BANK BERHAD - Federal Court Putrajaya
,ZULIAHA SELAMAT & ANOR vs MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT & ANOR - Malaya Muar
,SHUE CHUAN TRADING SDN BHD vs GOLDEN APPROACH SDN BHD - Malaya Shah Alam
,MULTIMEDIA GLORY SYSTEMS SDN BHD vs KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS - Malaya Kuala Lumpur
.Word count: 1028. This post integrates judicial insights for educational purposes.
#LimitationAct1953, #MalaysiaLaw, #LegalUpdate
In deciding so the High Court held that the Limitation Act is special law and is a complete code by itself, which excludes the operation of or the benefit of calling in the aid of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (in particular s 54 of the Act) to construe the period of limitation prescribed ... Norruhadi Omar & Ors, [2010] 9 #H....
Noruhadi bin Omar & Ors, [2010] 9 MLJ 603 at page 603 where the High Court held as follows: "The period of limitation as contained in s 6(1)(a) of the Act is mandatory and must be strictly observed unless there are sufficient facts to bring it within the ... Act 1953. ... Cartledge laid down the principle that #HL_S....
Act 1953). ... Norruhadi bin Omar & Ors, [2010] 9 MLJ 603 Yang Arif VT Singham J di ms 609 memutuskan Seksyen 6(1)(a) Akta Had Masa 1953 hendaklah dipatuhi dengan ketat: [2010] 3 MLJ 784 [2010] di mana Yang Arif Abdul Malik Ishak JCA di ms 791 memutuskan seperti berikut: [2010] 3 MLJ#HL_....
Section 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 stipulates that: " [2010] 1 MLRA 1; [2010] 2 MLJ 1; [2010] 2 CLJ 269 is instructive.
Norruhadi Omar & Ors, [2010] 9 MLJ 603 that the Limitation Act is "special law and is a complete code by itself " is, thus, incorrect. [38] In any case, there is also s 32 of Act 254 which reads as follows: 32. ... Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors, [2010] 3 MLJ 784 still....
In other words, the plaintiffs will be penalised for sitting on their right to act within time set under the LA 1953 even though the debts are still due. ... Further, the defence of limitation cannot be relied upon unless specifically pleaded. (See s 4 of the Limitation Act 1953 .) Limitation Act 1953 , failing whic....
What Does The Limitation Act 1953 Deal With? ... Act 1953 ? ... However, due to what was regarded as "complicated and obsolete" position of the then Limitation law, an improvement was made by the enactment of the Limitation Act 1953 , modelled on the English Law of Limitations. ... is legally wr....
s 21(5) Limitation Act, 1953. ... [39] Mitra's Law of Limitation & Prescription, Vol 1, 12th edn Reprint 2010 in its commentaries on s 19 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 at p 609 expressed the following view: s 21(1) Limitation Act 1953 applies to such an action.
: s 29 of the Limitation Act 1953 . ... In the circumstances, the provisions of s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 still apply. Taking out a third party proceedings in such a case does not allow Shue Chuan to circumvent and bypass the limitation period. ... Chow Tat Ming & 175 Ors, [2016] 1 MLJ 507 , held inter alia that: "The res....
statute-barred under both the Limitation Act 1953 and the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 . ... Act 1953 and the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 . ... The law stated in s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 bars any actions founded on contract or tort after the expiration of 6 yea....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
