Part 7: The Unresolved Horizon

 

For decades, foreclosure in Sabah has lingered in the shadows of dormancy. Files lie untouched, accounts remain contradictory, and yet the law continues to permit enforcement without end. In Peninsular Malaysia, the Federal Court has begun to confront the inequity of indefinite claims, as seen in Thameez Nisha Hasseem vMaybank Allied Bank Berhad [2023] 4 MLRA 492. But in Sabah, the horizon remains fixed at sixty years under its Limitation Ordinance.

 

This is not a technical quibble. It is a lived disparity. Two citizens of the same federation face radically different legal horizons depending on geography. In West Malaysia, foreclosure rights are curtailed by statute. In Sabah, Item 114 of the Limitation Ordinance exempts foreclosure altogether, allowing banks to revive claims after decades of silence.

 

Contradictions Unresolved

The contradictions I highlighted earlier remain unanswered. Figures that cannot reconcile — RM254,526.34 said to “include” RM257,042.42 — are left unexplained. Judgment sums admitted to be “fully settled” are still referenced as outstanding. Payments from disposal of properties are recorded, yet interest continues to accrue without reconciliation.

 

These are not minor accounting errors. They are anomalies that go to the heart of the claim. And yet, rather than reconcile them, reliance is placed on Item 114 — as if exemption from limitation could cure contradictions in the account itself.

 

Institutional Silence

The silence is telling. Lawyers repeat reliance on Item 114. Banks avoid reconciliation of their own figures. Leaders remain quiet on the disparity between Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia. The result is a system where foreclosure rights subsist indefinitely, even when the debt itself is admitted to be settled.

 

This is inequity by omission. It is not the product of deliberate reform, but of institutional avoidance. And it leaves ordinary purchasers exposed to indefinite threats of foreclosure, long after the substance of the debt has disappeared.

 

Equity and Dormancy

Equity cannot permit foreclosure after twenty years of dormancy. It cannot permit revival of claims where judgment sums are admitted to be settled. Item 114 may exempt foreclosure from statutory limitation, but it does not exempt banks from fairness, nor does it cure contradictions in their own accounts.

 

The question, then, is whether institutions in Sabah will confront this inequity, or whether silence will continue to shield indefinite enforcement.

 

The Federation Divide

Malaysia cannot claim a unified legal culture while Sabahans face a sixty‑year horizon and Peninsular citizens do not. This is more than a technical disparity; it is a test of whether justice is equal across the federation.

 

Will systemic reform extend to Sabah? Or will the inequity remain entrenched, tolerated by institutions, and ignored by leaders?

 

Closing 

And just as Sabahans were misled in classrooms, they were also shortchanged in boardrooms. Between 2003 and 2018, Sabah Development Bank quietly diverted RM8 billion in loans to Peninsular developers—leaving Sabahans billions poorer and raising the question: whose development was the bank really serving? The answer, and its staggering consequences, will be revealed in Part 8…