Procedural Compliance in Foreclosure Proceedings under the National Land Code: A Critical Analysis of Limra Fidem Sdn Bhd V E-Hong Holdings Sdn Bhd Case

Charge enforcement under the National Land Code (“NLC”) continues to generate disputes between chargees and chargors over the procedural requirements for obtaining an order for sale. This paper examines case of Limra Fidem Sdn Bhd v E-Hong Holdings Sdn Bhd, which turned on two issues: whether the one-month notice period under Section 254(1) runs from the date of the Notice of Recall or from the actual date of default, and whether the chargor’s objections, an allegedly unregistered charge and claims of double interest, amounted to ‘cause to the contrary’ under Section 256(3). This paper adoptes a doctrinal legal research methodology and analyses the court’s reasoning alongside key authorities, including Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd and Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Bhd, to trace how Malaysian courts treat the statutory notice requirement and the narrow grounds available to chargors resisting foreclosure. The court found that the Originating Summons was not premature, since the breach had commenced from the actual date of default rather than the recall notice, and that neither objection raised by the Defendant met the recognised categories of ‘cause to the contrary.’ These findings confirm that an order for sale is an action in rem, where the contractual disputes must be pursued separately as an action in personam rather than relied upon to resist foreclosure. The decision reaffirms that statutory timelines under Section 254 are tied to the actual breach, and that Section 256(3) must be interpreted narrowly. Thus, it reinforced certainty in Malaysian foreclosure proceedings while preserving the chargor’s right to separate civil remedies.

National Land Code, order for sale, cause to the contrary, Form 16D notice, charge enforcement

1. Bachan Singh v Mahinder Kaur & Ors [1956] MLJ 97 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Buxton & Anor v Supreme Finance (M) Bhd [1992] 2 MLJ 481 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chan Boi Loi v Public Bank Bhd & Anor [2011] 1 MLJ 478 (FC) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. CIMB Bank Bhd v Sivadevi a/p Sivalingam [2020] 1 MLJ 583 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. CIMB Bank Bhd v Suppiah a/l S Govindasamy & Ors [2025] 2 MLJ 929 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Citibank Bhd v Mohamad Khalid bin Farzalur Rahaman & Ors [2000] 4 MLJ 96 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Goh, M. W. S. (2018). Private treaty sale: A comparative study between West Malaysia and the Sarawak Land Code. HELP Law Review, 7(1), 57-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hap Seng Credit Sdn Bhd v Rentak Arena (M) Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jigarla K Doshi @ Jigarla a/l Kantilal Doshi v Resolution Alliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] 3 MLJ 61 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kader, Sharifah Zubaidah Syed Abdul, Mohamad, Nor Asiah, & Ali, Zuraidah Hj. (2023). This land of ours protecting ownership, interest and dealings in land. IIUM Law Journal, 31(1), 69-94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kandiah Peter v Public Bank Bhd [1994] 1 MLJ 119 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Keng Soon Finance Bhd v MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd [1989] 1 MLJ 457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd v Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lim, M. H. K. (1974). The National Land Code Form 16D v. Form 16E: Jacob v. Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 1(2), 244–248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lim Ban Hooi & Anor v Malayan Banking Bhd [2018] MLJU 510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Limitation Act 1953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd [1997] 1 MLJ 77 (FC) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mat Ali, S. A., Hassan, R., & Othman, A. A. (2019). Procedural laws governing event of default in Islamic financing in Malaysia: Issues and challenges. In Impact of Islamic Taxation on Economic Growth and Equity (pp. 165–182). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-545-120191017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Merican, R. (2013). Ruzian Markom, Sharina Ali Pitchay, Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol, Anita Abdul Rahim & Rooshida Merican Abdul. European Journal of Law and Economics, 36(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9249-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mohamad, N. A. (2004). A bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration: A special creature under the Malaysian land law. Proceedings of the International Real Estate Research Symposium (IRERS) 2004, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Murugappa Chettiar v Letchumanan Chettiar [1939] MLJ 296 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. National Land Code (Act 828) (Revised 2020) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Oh Hiam v Tham Kong [1980] 2 MLJ 159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Overseas Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Lee Tan Hwa & Anor [1989] 1MLJ 261 (HC) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Peh Lai Huat v MBF Finance Bhd [2009] CLJ 69 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Lim Weow [1998] 3 MLJ 56 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Perwira Habib Bank (M) Bhd v Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd [1988] 3 MLJ 84 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Phileoallied Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Sakuntalathevy Manickavasagam [2007] 1 MLJ 581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Phuman Singh v Kho Kwang Choon [1965] 2 MLJ 189 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. S & M Jewellery Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors v Fui Lian-Kwong Hing Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 MLJ 717 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Sharifah Zubaidah, S. A. K., Nor Asiah, M., & Zuraidah, H. A. (2023). This land of ours – Protecting ownership, interest and dealings in land. IIUM Law Journal, 31(1), 69–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Sivadevi a/p Sivalingam v CIMB Bank Bhd [2018] 5 MLJ 82 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd v Tunku Mudzaffar Bin Tunku Mustapha [2005] 1 MLJ 604 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Subchent Kaur v Chai Sau Kian [1958] MLJ 32 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Tai Lee Finance Co Sdn Bhd v Official Assignee & Ors [1983] 1 MLJ 81 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Tan Kong Min v Malaysian National Insurance Sdn Bhd [2005] 3 CLJ 825 (FC) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Teo, K. S., & Khaw, L. T. (2012). Land law in Malaysia: Cases and commentary (3rd ed.). LexisNexis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Teoh, P. T., & Chong, D. (1998). How to enforce debts in Malaysia. International Financial Law Review, 17(5), 49–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank Allied Bank Bhd [2023] 5 CLJ 874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v Chong Bun Sun [1994] 2 MLJ 221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd. v Soon Kin Fah & Anor [2001] MLJU 329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Wong, S. Y. (1967). Application of limitation of actions to charges under the National Land Code. Malaya Law Review, 9(2), 270–298. https://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/07/503-1967-9-mal-dec-270.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.