1. Introduction
This Federal Court decision in the case of Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors [Suit No.: 01(f)-11-04/2025(B)] is a significant reaffirmation of the strict procedural requirements under Section 418 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”), particularly in relation to the computation of time for appeals against decisions of land administrators.
The apex court was called upon to determine a narrow but crucial question of law:
What does “communicated to him” mean under Section 418 NLC, and when does the three‑month appeal period begin to run?
The ruling reinforces a consistent theme in Malaysian land law jurisprudence: statutory timelines governing land administration appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional.
2. Factual Background
The dispute arose from a long‑standing co‑ownership arrangement over land situated in Mukim Kapar, Klang.
The appellant’s father and the 1st respondent were co‑proprietors of land governed by a 1971 agreement, which divided usage rights between them.
Following a land acquisition in 2015, the original land was severed into two titles, namely Geran 326882 and Geran 326883.
In 2020, without the appellant’s knowledge or consent, the 1st respondent applied to the Land Office to partition both titles, resulting in the issuance of four separate lots.
The appellant only became aware of the partition process much later, after a land surveyor attended the site and relevant documents were subsequently disclosed.
Aggrieved, the appellant commenced proceedings by way of Originating Summons in the High Court, challenging the approvals granted under Section 418 NLC.
3. Procedural History
High Court
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim, holding that:
The appeal was filed outside the three‑month statutory period prescribed under Section 418 NLC; and
As a result, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court’s decision and agreed that:
Time began to run when the appellant was informed of the decision, and not when formal documentation was later served.
Federal Court
Leave to appeal was granted on a single question of law, namely:
Whether the phrase “communicated to him” in Section 418 NLC requires official written notification from the Land Office.
4. The Legal Issue
Section 418 NLC provides that an appeal must be filed:
“within the period of three months beginning with the date on which it was communicated to him.”
The appellant contended that:
“Communication” requires formal and official notice from the Land Office; and
Time should only run from the date complete documentation was served.
The respondents argued that:
Actual knowledge of the decision is sufficient; and
The statute does not require formal written notification.
5. Federal Court’s Decision
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and answered the leave question in the negative.
Key Findings
No requirement for formal written notice
Section 418 NLC does not mandate official written notification by the Land Office.Actual knowledge triggers time
The limitation period begins once the affected party knows or ought reasonably to know of the decision.Statutory timelines are jurisdictional
Non‑compliance with Section 418 NLC is fatal and deprives the court of jurisdiction.Declaratory relief cannot circumvent Section 418
The statutory appeal mechanism cannot be bypassed by invoking declaratory or inherent jurisdiction.
The Federal Court affirmed the reasoning of both the High Court and Court of Appeal that the appellant’s appeal was filed out of time, rendering the courts functus officio.
6. Key Takeaways
Knowledge, not paperwork, starts the clock
Parties cannot wait for full documentation before taking action.Section 418 NLC is strict and unforgiving
The three‑month period is mandatory and cannot be extended by the courts.Form cannot override substance
Actual awareness of a decision is sufficient to constitute “communication”.Prompt action is critical in land disputes
Delay, even by a short period, may permanently extinguish legal remedies.
7. Why This Case Matters
This decision reinforces certainty in land administration by:
Preventing indefinite challenges to land office decisions;
Upholding the integrity and finality of the Torrens system; and
Ensuring adherence to statutory appeal mechanisms prescribed by Parliament.
For practitioners, the case serves as a clear reminder that procedural compliance is substantive in land law.
8. Conclusion
The Federal Court’s decision in Lee Kean Choon v Khoo San & Ors affirms that procedural timelines under the National Land Code are not mere technicalities. In land matters, time goes to jurisdiction, and courts will not rescue parties from statutory non‑compliance.
The message is clear: once a land decision is known, immediate action is imperative.
This article is prepared by Vhimall Murugesan