TOPIC 1

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

PART B
•EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
•INTERACTION BETWEEN STATUTES THAT PRESCRIBE
FOR THE LIMITATION PERIOD
•LOCUS STANDI
1
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

•Disability – S 24 (1) Limitation Act [Read S 24 (2), S

24 (3)]
“If on the date when any right of action accrued for which a
period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, the person to
whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may be
brought at any time before the expiration of six years, or in
the case of actions to which section 6(4) or section 8 of this
Act applies, one year from the date when such person
ceased to be under a disability or died, whichever event first
occurred, notwithstanding that the period of limitation had
expired:
Provided that in any case to which the provisions of section
29 of this Act apply, this subsection shall apply as if the date
from which the period of limitation begins to run were
substituted for the date when the right of action accrued.”
 

2
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

•Who are the “disable”?

O76 R 1 Rules of Court 2012
-minor
-mentally disturbed person (within the meaning of
Mental Health Act)
- S 24(1)
 

3
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
-Fresh accrual of action on
acknowledgment/payment:
-Sec 26 Limitation Act (read tgt with s27)
“(1) Where there has accrued any right of action to recover land or to enforce a
mortgage or charge in respect of land or personal property, and-
(a) the person in possession of the land or personal property acknowledges the
title of the person to whom the right of action has accrued; or
(b) in the case of any such action by a mortgagee or chargee the person in
possession as aforesaid or the person liable for the debt secured by the mortgage
or charge makes any payment in respect thereof, whether principal or interest,

the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the
acknowledgment or last payment.

Cause of action lapsed d, but there’s something that make the cause of action
alive again
(must have a written declaration from the other party that the cause of
action shall have a fresh accrual. Eg A owes B money, but cause of action
have lapsed. Then 6 years later after the lapse of limit. period A rmbs that he
owes B money, so he must write a written declaration that he wishes to
return the money to B [s27])

4
 
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

-Fresh accrual of action on

acknowledgment/payment:
-Sec 26 Limitation Act
 
(2) Where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt
or other liquidated pecuniary claim, or any claim to the
personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest
therein, and the person liable or accountable therefor
acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect
thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not
before the date of the acknowledgment or the last payment:
 
Provided that a payment of a part of the rent or interest due at
any time shall not extend the period for claiming the remainder
of the rent or interest then due, but any payment of interest
shall have effect, for the purposes of this subsection only, as if
it were a payment in respect of the principal debt.”

5
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

-Fresh accrual of action on

acknowledgment/payment:
-Sec 27 Limitation Act
 
“(1) Every such acknowledgment as is referred to in section 26
or in the proviso to section 16 of this Act shall be in writing and
signed by the person making the acknowledgment.
 
(2) Any such acknowledgment or payment as is referred to in
section26 or the proviso to section 16 of this Act may be made
by the agent of the person by whom it is required to be made
under that section, and shall be made to the person, or to an
agent of the person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged
or, as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the payment is
being made.”

6
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD
-**Fraud or mistake: S 29 Limitation Act (p192)
“Where, in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is
prescribed by this Act, either-
(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant or his agent or of any
person through whom he claims or his agent; or
(b) the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person as
aforesaid; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake,
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has
discovered the fraud or the mistake, as the case may be, or could with
reasonable diligence have discovered it:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any action to be brought to
recover, or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction
affecting, any property which-
 
(i)in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a
person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the
purchase know or have reason to believe that any fraud had been committed;
or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration,
subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person
who did not know or have reason to believe that the mistake had been
made.”

7
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

-Cases:
-Fraud or mistake: S 29 Limitation Act
Yong & Co v Wee Hood Teck Corporation [1984] MLJ
• When any person having a right to institute a suit, has bindings of fraud been
kept from the knowledge of such right or of the title on which it’s founded or
whr any doc necessary to such right has been fraudulently concealed from
him, the time limited for a suit:
• a. against the person guilty of the fraud or
• b. against any person claiming thru him;
• shall be computed from the 1st fraud became known to the person injuriously
affected or in the case of the concealed doc when he first had the means of
producing of compelling the production of the doc
39 Beaman v ARTS [1949] 1 KB 550
Lim Yoke Kong v Sivapiran [1992] 2 MLJ 318 (HC);
[1992] 2 MLJ 571 (SC)

8
NFA2010
 EXTENSION TO THE LIMITATION PERIOD

-Limitation must be pleaded

See: S 4 Limitation Act
O 18 r 8 ROC 2012
- Matters which must be specifically pleaded
-Lee Cheng Yee v Tiu Soon Siang & Anor [2004] 1
CLJ 1
Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Lay Kee Tee [2009]
1 CLJ 663

9
NFA2010
INTERACTION BETWEEN STATUTES THAT
PRESCRIBE FOR THE LIMITATION PERIOD

-Loo Khoo Chin v Tan Cheng Hang [1997] 1 CLJ 109

-Phua Chin Chew v KM & Ors [1987] 2 MLJ 604 (SC)
-Ban Guan Hin Realty Sdn Bhd v Sunny Cheok Sai
[1989] 1 MLJ 131

10
NFA2010
 LOCUS STANDI

-Locus standi means “standing in Court”; the right of a party to appear and be heard by a tribunal.

Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1998] 1 CLJ 219; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 63
• What is the law of Locus standi: every legal system has a built in mechanism to protect its judicial
process from abuse by busybodies, pranks and other mischief status by insisting that a P should have
a special interest in the proceeding which he institutes. This special interest is a nexus btw him and
the party against whom he brings his complaints to court and is known as locus standi. In a public
law litigation, the rule is that the attorney general is the guardian of a public interest. It’s he who will
enforce the performance of public duty and the compliance of public law. Thus, when he sues, he’s
not required to show locus standi. On the other hand, any other person however will not be able to
commence such litigation unless he has a locus standi or in the absence of it, he has obtained the aid
or consent of the AG. If such consent is obtained, the suit is called a related action in which the AG
bcms the P, while the private citizen is a relator. (subj to locus standi against public right)
• (buckley J) in Boyce v Paddington Borough Council) A P can sue without joining AG in 2 cases
• Where the interference with the public right is such and that some private
right of his at the same time interfered (eg whr an obstruction is so placed in a
hiding that the owner of premises is specifically affected be reason that the
obstruction in interferes with his private right to access from and to his
premises)
• Where no private right is interfered with, but the P in respect of his public
right suffers special damage equivalent to himself from the interference with
the public right
Tengku Jaffar bin Tengku Ahmad v Karpal Singh [1993] 3 MLJ 156

11
NFA2010
Almost there…