INTRODUCTION

The foreclosure process is legally backed by a mortgage or deed of trust

contract, which allows the lender the right to use a property as collateral if the
borrower fails to comply with the terms of the mortgage. The foreclosure process
normally begins when a borrower fails or skips at least one mortgage payment,
however this varies per state. A private treaty, on the other hand, is an agreement to
sell a property at a price agreed upon directly between the vendor and purchaser or
their representatives. Foreclosure via private treaty is the process of selling the
charged land or property without going through an auction, while the legal procedure
is to apply to the LA under S261 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC). However,
it is up to the chargee's option to sell the land either without using the cumbersome
process given by NLC, by way of private treaty or public auction as indicated in S260
of NLC.

(a) With reference to the relevant provisions of the statute and case law, critically
explain the statement above by reviewing the procedure of foreclosure
proceeding under the National Land Code (Revised 2020) until the sale is
completed.

Procedure Of Foreclosure Proceeding Under The National Land Code

A foreclosure procedure or in layman terms order for sale is a legal procedure in

which a chargee, or lender, takes possession of a chargor's, or borrower's, property
and sells it to cover any existing debt that the chargor is unable to repay to the
chargee. The procedure for applying for an order for sale is set forth in Sections 254
to 259 of the National Land Code and Order 83 of the Rules of Court of 2012.
This foreclosure proceeding has been divided into two by the NLC, that is by an order
for sale by High Court and an order for sale by the Land Administrator.

Foreclosure procedure in the High Court

An order for sale by High Court is usually for registry titles, qualified titles
corresponding to registry titles and subsidiary titles. Order 83 of the Rules of Court
2012 (ROC) and Section 256 of the National Land Code 1965 (NLC) regulate the
application for an order for sale for Registry title.

Section 258 of the NLC requires the Registrar of the Court and the chargee on
whose application the order was granted to follow particular processes prior to the
sale. The procedure during the sale is further defined in Section 259 of the NLC,
which states that every sale must be directed by an official of the court or a licenced
auctioneer. The purchaser or highest bidder will subsequently be entitled to a Form
16F certificate. Furthermore, Order 83 Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) sets forth the
basic procedural principles that the parties to a foreclosure action on a charged
property must follow.

Firstly, a letter of demand (LOD) will be sent to the Borrower or Chargor

seeking payment of the arrears; if payment is not made, a letter of recall (LOR) will
be sent to the Borrower or Chargor demanding payment of the whole outstanding
amount.
 Next, Form 16D must be issued against the Chargor before the Chargee can
submit the application to the courts under Section 254 NLC 1965. The Chargor is
expected to correct the violation within one month of receiving the Form 16D. In the
case of Jacob v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp, Ipoh, the court observed that
section 255(1) appears to imply that if the chargee makes its claim using Form 16E, it
is not necessary to provide notice in Form 16D. However, if Form 16E was not used
initially, it would be required to merely employ Form 16D. The goal of this clause is
to ensure that the notification is sent to the chargor before the chargee applies for an
order for sale.

The omission of the chargee to indicate the actual amount payable and rate of
interest asked from the chargor in Form 16D or Form 16E renders the notice incorrect
and illegal, according to the case of Cempaka Finance Bhd v Abbas bin Yaakob.

The application must be made in the form of an Originating Summons ("OS")

accompanied by an affidavit ("AIS"). Once the Notice Temujanji is submitted, the
court will set a hearing date. All documents must be served to the Defendant, and he
must also be advised of the hearing date. Following the filing of the Affidavit of
Service, a Further Affidavit as of the date of hearing will be filed to reveal the
particulars of the amount still outstanding under the charge as of the OS's hearing
date, in accordance with Order 83 Rule 3 of the ROC. According to the case of
Perwira Habib Bank Bhd v Lum Choon Realty Sdn Bhd, the genuine goal of
Order 83 rule 3 must be carried out, which is to safeguard the chargor who was about
to have his land auctioned off.

The next step is to prepare the Proclamation of Sale ("POS") and the Conditions
of Sale ("COS"). After being authorised by the Chargee's counsel, the POS and COS
will be published in selected newspapers, distributed around the property, and served
on the Chargor.

The auctioneer will draft the Proclamation of Sale in Draftt during the auction
and transmit it to the Plaintiff's lawyer for approval. Following approval, the
auctioneer will print fair copies and provide them to the Plaintiff's lawyer, who will
serve the Defendant and submit an Affidavit of Service. Every prospective bidder
must pay the court 10% of the reserve price by bank draught on the auction day before
the auction begins. The victorious bidder must pay the balance purchase price
("BPP") within 120 days of winning the offer.

If the successful bidder does not settle the BPP within the stated time range, the
chargee will forfeit the deposit. Then, within 8 weeks following the end of the 120-
day period, a new Notice of Application to schedule a new auction date must be filed.
Otherwise, the money and original papers will be returned to the chargee and the file
closed.

Foreclosure procedure in the Land Office

The foreclosure processes to obtain an order for sale of the land that carries the
H. S. (M), Geran Mukim, Pajakan Mukim title should begin at the Land Office.
Section 260(2) of the National Land Code 1965 requires a chargee to submit Form
16G to the Land Administrator in order to obtain an order for sale under Land Office
title. Before submitting Form 16G to the Land Office, other pertinent papers such as
the certified genuine copy of the land title and duplicate charge, quit rent assessment
bill, official land title search, and application fee for 16G should be included.

The Land Administrator shall determine an inquiry date by (a) selecting a time
and place for the conducting of an enquiry, (b) informing the chargee, and (c) causing
a summons to be issued on the chargor requested to appear at the enquiry, according
to Section 261(1) of the NLC. If the Land Administrator is satisfied that the chargor's
default has been proved and that the chargor has made no attempt to correct such
default, the Land Administrator may issue an order for sale in relation to the charge
property. Prior to submitting Form 16G to the Land Office, the chargee shall send the
chargor Form 16D on the Notice of Default, and after that, the chargee should send
Form 16H on the order for sale.

Section 257 of NLC, which deals with the topics to be dealt with by order for
sale, lays forth the criteria of the content of each order for sale from (a) to (h). At this
stage, the chargee's duty is to first prepare the conditions of sale in accordance with
the terms of the order and any determination made thereunder by the Registrar of the
Court, and, if the issue document of title to the land or, as the case may be, duplicate
lease is in his custody, to deposit the same with the Court not less than one week
before the date fixed for the sale.

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 263(2) of NLC, the order for sale shall be
granted in Form 16H for a public auction. It should be noted that, prior to the sale, the
Land Administrator is required by Section 264(1)(a) of NLC to serve a copy of the
Form 16H on the chargor and chargee. Meanwhile, Section 264(2) of NLC states that
the chargee must lodge the duplicate charge and the original title with the Land
Administrator at least seven days before the auction date.

In terms of selling procedures, Section 265 of NLC stated that the sale will be
prepared by the appointed auctioneer. Prior to advertising the property, the appointed
auctioneer must obtain consent from the Land Administrator and the chargee. The
proclamation of sale will be distributed, placed at the charged property, and promoted
in the local newspaper once it has been approved. Furthermore, the chargee is
required to prepare a Form 16Q statement of all payments due and to notify the
Registrar or the Land Administrator on or after the date of the public auction sale. In
the case of M&J Frozen Sdn Bhd & Anor v Siland Sdn Bhd, it’s been held that the
vendor and the highest bidder has formed a sales contract and that sale is ‘concluded’.

In conclusion, it brings us to reviewing the foreclosure procedure to see if

there is anything to be improved. There are certain things that can be improved from
this proceeding. Firstly, it can be seen that the current foreclosure proceeding focuses
more on the lender’s rights rather than giving protection to the borrower’s rights. So,
improvements can be made by giving borrowers a legal representation chance as well.
Next, clearer standards can be set to ensure that borrowers are properly educated
about the foreclosure process, their rights, and the options available to address the
default. Lastly, maybe measures could be put in place to reduce the likelihood of
undervaluation during the auction.

(b) Compare the procedure in (a) with sale of land by private treaty. Your
comparison shall include the comparison of the legality of private treaty sales
between West Malaysia with Sarawak Land Code 1985 (Cap. 81) and Sabah
Land Ordinance (Cap. 68).

Sale of land by private treaty and procedure.

In order to acquire the funds needed to repay the fee, the chargor will execute
a private treaty sale. The National Land Code (NLC) does not forbid the sale by
private treaty, and the chargor has the right to do so in order to recoup the arrears and
expenses. According to the legal article, A review of the Federal Court case of
Kimlin Housing Development Sdn Bhd, authored by SY Kok, as long as the
chargee's interest is not jeopardized, nothing would prevent a chargor from selling the
charged land through private treaty before an order for sale is issued. In the case of
Chee Sen Lean @ Choo Sin Lean v Chin Choon Woon,the court held that it has the
discretion to allow for the property to be sold by private treaty if it is found to be a
more viable option than public auction.

In Malaysia, the process of selling land by private treaty begins with the
landowner establishing a price and marketing the property to potential buyers using a
range of channels, such as real estate companies or internet marketplaces. Second, in
order to determine the land's current market value, the buyer may employ a trained
valuer to do a property appraisal.

When a prospective buyer expresses an interest in the property, the landowner

or their agents will initiate negotiations with the buyer. After the selling price and
other terms and conditions have been agreed upon, contracts are issued and
exchanged by lawyers or real estate agents.When the buyer's bid is approved, he or
she must pay a deposit, which is typically 10% of the overall cost. The deposit will be
held until the transaction is complete. Finally, the transaction will be considered
complete if the buyer has paid the full purchase price and the landowner has given
possession of the land to the buyer. The lawyer will oversee the transfer of ownership
and ensure that all legal processes are followed.

Comparison the procedure of foreclosure proceeding and the sale of land by private
treaty.

To commence the foreclosure process, the lender serves a notice of demand on

the borrower or guarantor. Meanwhile, in the case of a private treaty sale, when the
chargor’s property is in foreclosure, the landowner begins the procedure by obtaining
the chargee's approval. He then negotiates directly with a possible buyer or their agent
to decide the terms and circumstances of the transaction, such as the purchase price,
payment terms, and other relevant data.At the end of the initial stage, there is
involvement of court in the foreclosure proceedings. If the borrower fails to make the
required payments within the given time frame, the lender initiates a case in court to
foreclose the debt.

The court will subsequently issue a foreclosure ruling. In a private treaty, the
buyer makes a formal offer, which the seller accepts once the parties agree on the
conditions. This is usually performed by the completion of a Letter of Offer or a Sale
and Purchase Agreement (SPA).
 Then, at the middle stage, the period of sale for foreclosure proceedings
usually takes less time than a private treaty sale where the bidder is to complete their
sale immediately as it generates a sense of urgency based on a predetermined "end
date" for the property, and this competitiveness may result in higher bids and a higher
sale price. Sale through private treaty, on the other hand, takes longer to sell. Since
there is no deadline, the potential buyer is not pressured to act as quickly as they
would in a public auction. As there is no competition in a private treaty deal, the seller
and buyer must agree on the best price for the property.

One notable difference between a private treaty sale and a foreclosure action
in the beginning of the final stage is that a foreclosure procedure is more transparent
because the foreclosure auction is done in public. Furthermore, because the highest
bidder is committed to purchasing a property once the hammer falls, there is no
opportunity for discussing the terms of the transaction or a cooling-off period. In a
private treaty sale, the seller or agent may choose to comment on the wide range of
bids received for a property, but the buyer would not know the exact amount that rival
bidders had given. As a result, private treaty sales are less transparent than auctions.

Next, in the final stage, the transfer of ownership for foreclosure procedures
occurs when the land is put for sale at public auction as soon as the foreclosure
decision is obtained. Following the auction, the buyer has a redemption period in
which they can clear their debt and repurchase the property. If the borrower fails to
repay, the court will issue an order of possession in favor of the buyer, and the buyer
will then assume title of the property. When all SPA conditions, including payment of
the purchase price, have been satisfied, the parties will sign transfer documents such
as the Memorandum of Transfer (MOT) to transfer title of the land from the seller to
the buyer.

In summary, the sale of land by private treaty is a negotiated transaction

between the seller and the buyer, with ownership transferred through private
contractual arrangements. In contrast, a foreclosure case involves a court-mediated
procedure initiated by the chargee and concluding in a public auction.

Position in West Malaysia

In West Malaysia, Section 260 of the NLC was held to be only in

contemplation of a public auction and thus, the court has no power to order a sale by
private treaty under the Code, as per the case of Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Lau Ah
Yen & Anor. However, the learned Wan Adnan J had noted that the court may allow
a sale through a private treaty if the proceeds of the sale are not lesser than the amount
that is due to the chargee. Further on, in the case of The Standard Chartered Bank v
Packiri Maideen, it was held that the chargee was allowed to sell the land through a
private treaty before he had taken proceedings under the Legislation. Once the
proceedings have taken place, they must be sold through an auction ordered by the
court.

However, it has to be noted that even after an order for sale has been issued
and a public auction has been held, the chargor may still sell his property by private
treaty as per Section 266 of NLC. In the case of M & J Frozen Food Sdn Bhd v
Siland Sdn Bhd, the court ruled that the chargor may still have the proprietary right
to pay all monies owed under the charge as well as any expenditures spent prior to the
conclusion of the sale and registration of the purchaser. Hence, the order for sale can
still be cancelled as long as the chargor has successfully paid the entire amount.

Position in Sarawak under the Sarawak Land Code 1958.

The courts in Sarawak have a somewhat wider field of power when it comes to
the sale of charged property. The courts in Sarawak are given the power to sell the
charged property using various methods once foreclosure proceedings have
commenced, one of which may be a private treaty, they are also able to make
alterations to the subsequent methods of sale.

The courts in Sarawak are given such power by virtue of Section 148 (2) of
the Sarawak Land Code where they can make three types of orders which include,
inter alia, the sale of charged land, and once the court has examined the evidence
produced by the parties, may make a decision to order for a sale of the property in a
way that seems just. In the case of Chai Koh Shon v Public Bank Berhad, it was
upheld by the court that as Section 148(2) is a provision that provides the court with
powers to make an order of sale, although not specifying the method of sale, Section
150(1) of the Sarawak Land Code provides for procedural matters in regard to
judicial sales that are ordered. The words of section 150(1) contain a phrase that says
“such other mode” which may include a sale through private treaty. The sale by
private treaty under the Sarawak Land Code was further approved by the Court of
Appeal in the case of Chai Koh Shon v Public Bank Berhad, where in Paragraph
42, it decided that if the sale of a lot of land that is done through means of a private
treaty, must fall under Section 143(2) and (3) of the Sarawak Land Code, and be
governed by such provisions. It further held that such a sale may be concluded at any
point in time, either before or after the respondent, as the charge has commenced
proceedings in the High Court under section 148.

Position in Sabah under the Sabah Land Ordinance.

The Sabah Land Ordinance does not expressly provide for the order of a sale
through a private treaty, but it is provided in Section 111 of the Ordinance that
where if there is a default in payment on the part of the chargee, the Collector may
order of a sale of the charged property that is to be done through means of a public
auction which is in compliance of the rules under the Ordinance. If it is to be
construed in a strict sense then it would mean that there is to be no sale of charged
property through private treaties. However, if the provision is to be construed in a
wider sense, it would allow a sale through private treaty in certain circumstances as
done in West Malaysian Courts.

Comparison of the Legality of Private Treaties in West Malaysia, Sabah and

Sarawak.

Firstly, in terms of whether or not a private treaty is expressly provided for in

the governing legal framework, for West Malaysia, it is not expressly provided for in
the National Land Code, but instances in which they are allowed for are provided in
cases. In the Sarawak Land Code, it is provided in Section 150(1) that any other
method of sale can be used to sell charged property. Neither does the Sabah Land
Ordinance provide for an alternative method through which a sale is to be made.
Secondly, is in terms of whether the order for sale may be altered or varied, once the
order has been made. In West Malaysia, the courts usually have no authority to make
such orders. However, in circumstances where an order for sale has been granted ,
there is still a chance for the chargor to sell his property by means of section 266 of
the NLC under a private treaty sale, once an order for sale has been made.

However, in Sarawak, the courts have the power to make such alterations and
variations to the order of sale once it has been ordered. The Sabah Land Ordinance
is somewhat silent on the matter. Lastly, is whether or not at first instance, a sale
through private treaty is allowed. In West Malaysia and Sabah, it has been allowed,
through case law, in certain circumstances unlike in Sarawak where any other method
of sale is allowed at first instance. It is opined that the reason as to why there are
differences in the legality of the order of sale through private treaty is because
Sarawak and Sabah there are many plots of native land that belong to the indigenous
people and one of the ways to keep it among their group of natives is through
ensuring that such property is sold specifically to those who are of the same ethnicity.
This will prevent the land from falling into the hands of outsiders who are not
members of their native group.

c) With reference to the relevant case law, critically identify the circumstances
under which an Order for Sale will not be granted by the adjudicating court.
Your answer shall contain at least TWO (2) latest reported case law.

There are certain circumstances that an adjudicating court will not grant an
Order for Sale of a land. These circumstances are limited and if a sale of land falls
under one of these circumstances, an Order of Sale of land will not be initiated by the
proceeding court. In relation to this, Section 256 (3) of the National Land Code
(NLC) provides that the court will only order a sale or lease of the land according to
its charge if it is not convinced of the existence of cause to the contrary. As for the
cause of contrary, it can be seen in the case of Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank
Bhd where here the judge Gopal Sri Ram laid down three circumstances where cause
of contrary does exist. Among the three circumstances are if a chargor is able to
present their case within any of the exceptions to the indefeasibility doctrine in
Section 340 of the Code, the chargee has not met the prerequisites for the order's
issuance and that the issuance of order would be contrary to a rule of common law or
equity.

In pursuance to it, as for the first circumstance about exceptions to the

indefeasibility doctrine it is stated in Section 340 (2) of NLC which provides that no
such person's or body's title or interest shall be indefeasible in any circumstances of
fraud and misrepresentation where either party of the land transaction was involved.
From this provision it is clear that there are certain exceptions to the indefeasibility
doctrine. As for the first exception of fraud and misrepresentation it is provided under
Section 340 (2) (a) of the National Land Code. Fraud is illustrated in the case of
Datuk Jagindar Singh & Ors v Tara Rajaratnam where it was stated that fraud can
be induced by intentionally and dishonestly registering an interest and then
transferring the interest to another person without the original proprietor's approval.
Besides, as for misrepresentation it is illustrated in the case of Loke Yew v Port
Swettenham Rubber Co Ltd where here in this case it was stated that
misrepresentation is the situation where a person, who knew about the unregistered
interest on the land, represents to the vendor that he will make arrangements with the
unregistered holder.

Meanwhile, the second exception of forgery and insufficient or void

instrument is stated in Section 340 (2) (b) of NLC. This exception can be seen in the
case of OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Johor Darul Takzim
where the court ruled that forgery does not have to be related to the person whose title
is being challenged. Forged instruments are null and void. Where the registration was
obtained through forgery, the registered title of proprietor or registered interest holder
becomes void.

Furthermore, under Section 340 (2) (c) of the NLC the third exception is
where registration was done by exceeding power or illicit acquisition. As to this, it
can be referred to the case of UMBC v Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v Syarikat
Perumahan Luas Sdn. Bhd. (No. 2) where in this case the court ruled that
registering a dealing in violation of a legislative restriction on interest does not confer
indefeasibility of title or interest. In registering such charges, the Registrar also
exercised outside of the powers granted to him by Section 340(2) of the NLC.

Thus, in relation to the exceptions of indefeasibility, they will come into effect
as per the case of Ong Led Seng v Lee Kam Sun & Ors where it provided that it is
only where the vitiating circumstance for an exception under sub-s 340(2) has been
proved in the court of law that the registered title would be brought under an
exception to the general rule of indefeasibility. Therefore from this case, it is evident
that if a chargor is able to drive their case under any of the exceptions to the
indefeasibility doctrine, a court will not grant an Order for Sale of a land.

Meanwhile, the second circumstance provided under the case of Low Lee
Lian v Ban Hin Lee Bank Bhd is when the chargor may show cause to the contrary
within S.256 (3) of the NLC by showing that the chargee had failed to meet the
conditions precedent for the making of an application for an order of sale.

There are many formalities which if failed can be used to show that the
chargee had failed the conditions precedent for the application for the order of sale.
The first type is the failure on the part of the chargee to prove the making of a demand
or service upon the chargor of a notice in form 16D would constitute cause to the
contrary. According to the case of Perwira Affin Bank Berhad v Saad B Abdullah
& Anorin which the court first reaffirms the decision in Low Lee Lian and
additionally applies the second circumstance to decide their case. In this case there
was a breach of the provisions of the charge when there was a failure to pay the full
sum required under the legal letter dated to the law firm handling the transaction
which meant failure to comply with the terms of the charge went to the foundation
affecting the validity of the demand. Thus, the court stated the burden of proof was on
the plaintiff to show that form 16D was issued according to the charge and the
plaintiff failed in doing so. The court stopped the order of sale in this case because of
the second circumstance, which is failing to comply with a condition precedent, and
the plaintiff also could not establish that the form 16D was properly created, so the
plaintiff's motion for an order of sale had been rejected.
 Additionally, in the case of Jigarlal K Doshhi @ Jigarlal a/l Kantilal Doshi
v Resolution Alliance Sdn Bhd the appellant had made the appeal on the grounds
that the respondent's failure to issue the default notices within seven days from the
date of default on the loans established ‘cause to the contrary' under s 256(3) of the
NLC. The appellant submitted that the respondent by not starting proceedings until
some 15 years after the act of default was trying to take advantage of the appellant
and take huge sums of interest from the appellant. Based on this ground the appellant
would like the order of sale dismissed. However, at the end of the court proceedings
the court stated that delay in foreclosure proceedings did not amount to cause to
contrary within the ambit of S.256(3) of the NLC. Thus, the court dismissed the
appeal.

Under the same circumstance, the second ground is chargee failing to comply
with the procedural requirements of Order 83 Rules of Court (ROC). Order 83 of
the ROC supports charge actions and a failure to follow these rules would be grounds
to deny an order of sale. In the case of Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd v Lum
Choon Realty Sdn Bhd the appellant raised the issue of whether failure of a chargee
to comply with the rules under Order 83 of the ROC will of the Rules of the High
Court 1980 by not stating: (i) the amount of interest in arrears as at the date of the
originating summons; and (ii) the amount of daily interest, rendered an order for sale
to be set aside. The court specifically stated that the requirements of order 83 must be
strictly followed and that failure to comply will make an order for sale liable to be set
aside. Similarly, in the case of Sivadevi A/P Sivalingam v CIMB Bank Bhd in
which the court held that no order for sale may be granted if there is no compliance
with order 83 of ROC.

On the other hand, the third circumstance under the Low Lee Lian case is if
the making of the order of sale would be contrary to a rule of common law or equity.
This principle originates from the case of Murugappa Chettiar v Letchumanan
Chettiar in which Aitken J provided that an order of sale should be denied by the
courts in all cases where it would be unjust to do so. Unjust here means contrary to
the rules of common law and equity which are in force in Malaysia. Furthermore, the
case of Keng Soon Finance Bhd v MK Retnam Holdings Sdn Bhd stated the
limitations of its application and in which circumstances to use this principle, where a
chargor must show some statute or some rule of equity which would be violated if the
order of sale was granted.. An example of such a scenario can be seen in the case of
Overseas Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Lee Tan Hwa where the court found that it
would be unconscionable to deprive the first intervenor who had already bought and
went into possession of the land, thus the order of sale was refused.

Lastly, in determining whether an order of sale should be granted, the court

may consider external factors and assess whether the circumstances presented align
with those outlined in the case of Low Lee Lian. This evaluation helps determine if
the plaintiff qualifies for an exception where an order of sale would not be granted.

CONCLUSION

Firstly, with regards to the procedures of foreclosure, improvements can be

made in foreclosure proceedings by balancing borrower's rights and ensuring
borrowers have legal representation to protect their rights, and not solely focusing on
the lender's rights. There should also be clearer education standards to educate
borrowers about the foreclosure process, their rights, and available options to address
defaults. By implementing these improvements, the foreclosure proceedings can be
fairer and more balanced for all parties involved.

Next, a private treaty sale is a negotiated transaction between the seller and the
buyer, with ownership transferred through private contractual arrangements. In
contrast, a foreclosure case involves a court-mediated procedure initiated by the
lender and culminating in a public auction. Furthermore, with regards to legality of
private treaty sale, Private treaty sales are not expressly provided by the National
Land Code in West Malaysia, although they may be permitted under specific
circumstances. The Sarawak Land Code allows for any other mode of sale for
chargeable property, however the Sabah Land Ordinance does not. Lastly, with
regards to circumstances when order of sale would not be granted by a court, the
circumstances provided in the case of Low Lee Lian is subjected to some external
factors that the court may consider to determine whether the plaintiff falls within one
of those circumstances.