A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM v HANISAH BEGUM BINTI M. NAGOOR HASHAN

ja-11ancc-3-05-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 26 August 2025 • JA-11ANCC-3-05/2023 • 17 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Rayuan Sivil — Had masa — Seksyen 6(1)(a) Akta Had Masa 1953 — Tarikh kausa tindakan terakru — Kontrak pinjaman — Kegagalan membayar balik — Pembayaran selepas breach — Sama ada menghidupkan semula had masa — Seksyen 26 dan 27 — Keperluan pengakuan bertulis dan ditandatangani — Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 KKM 2012 — Plain and obvious — Tindakan dihalang had masa — Rayuan ditolak.

Practice Areas

Rayuan Sivil

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (4)

Mathews George & Co Firm Shobana M & Associates Firm Mathews George Counsel Defendant Shobana M Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

A Magendran a/l Arumugam Appellant Hanisah Begum binti M. Nagoor Hashan Respondent

Case Significance

A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM v HANISAH BEGUM BINTI M. NAGOOR HASHAN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 26, 2025 (citation: ja-11ancc-3-05-2023). <p>The plaintiff appealed the Magistrate's Court decision striking out his loan repayment claim on limitation grounds. A RM58,000 loan was made in 2015 with a one-month repayment period, but the writ was filed in October 2022, beyond the six-year limitation under s.6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that partial payments made in 2017 did not meet the requirements of ss.26 and 27 of the Limitation Act to revive the limitation period.</p> The case was decided by Manira binti Mohd Nor. Counsel appearing: Mathews George (counsel for defendant), Shobana M (counsel for plaintiff).

Summary

The plaintiff appealed the Magistrate's Court decision striking out his loan repayment claim on limitation grounds. A RM58,000 loan was made in 2015 with a one-month repayment period, but the writ was filed in October 2022, beyond the six-year limitation under s.6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that partial payments made in 2017 did not meet the requirements of ss.26 and 27 of the Limitation Act to revive the limitation period.

What was the outcome of A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM v HANISAH BEGUM BINTI M. NAGOOR HASHAN?

<p>The plaintiff appealed the Magistrate's Court decision striking out his loan repayment claim on limitation grounds. A RM58,000 loan was made in 201...

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)
[1971] 1 MLJ 32 [1978] 1 MLJ 234 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [2011] 2 CLJ 269 [2012] 2 MLJ 46