A transmission, as defined under Section 346 of the National Land Code (NLC), is principally the process to have an Administrator (under intestacy), or Executor (under testacy), to be registered as such on the issue document of title affecting landed property belonging to an owner who has since died.
Without the transmission, no dealing whatsoever can be carried out over the said landed property.
Due to the provisions accorded under the Federal Constitution, each state in Malaysia will have its own unique form to be completed for such an exercise.
Be that as it may, regardless of which state the form is meant for, it needs to comply with the provisions of Section 436(A) of the NLC, which require certain key details to be provided in the interest of completion.
In a situation where the Administrator or Executor is a natural person, the following information is required:
- Description of his/her citizenship;
- His identity card (MyKad) number, if Malaysian, or passport number, if non-Malaysian
Where the Administrator or Executor is a corporation, the law under which it was constituted, and whether it is a local or foreign company, must be stated in turn.
For close to 26 years now, I have been incorrectly completing the transmission forms as a matter of routine, and without even being aware of the provisions of Section 436(A). They were always accepted without question.
However, sometime in January of 2023, the transmission form prepared from my end was rejected for the very first time, and by the Kuala Lumpur Land Registry.
The Kuala Lumpur Land Registry issued an official letter, stating inter alia, that the rejection was due to my failure to state my corporate client’s manner of legal constitution, and whether it was a Malaysian company or otherwise, thus contrary to Section 436(A).
As with any rejection, I went through several stages of delinquent emotions, namely disbelief, anger, and the desire to call on God to hail fire and brimstone over the said land registry. A bit much, I suppose, but sometimes, the worst in you manifests itself when you feel that you were unjustly dealt with, albeit misguidedly.
So, by around lunch time on Jan 17, I confidently wrote in a single email, addressed to the registry’s deputy director, assistant director, and two assistant registrars, and articulated my grief with evidence of a past successful transmission exercise, in the hopes that the current rejected transmission form, even though not in compliance with Section 436(A), could still be accepted.
I was not hoping for a quick response, a symptomatic state of mind after constant protracted dealings with government bureaucracy.
To my pleasant surprise, by around 4pm on that very same day, the assistant director replied my email, and gave a succinct explanation, backed by clear authority, specifically reiterating the mandatory need to comply with Section 436(A).
How could I miss that after all these years? The sad fact remained that I did.
It happens and reminded me of my long-held belief that years of repetition in doing something does not necessarily translate to doing things correctly.
Invariably, the application of correct knowledge is always key, not necessarily the years of experience.
This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Twentytwo13.
