The Sap-Ing-Sith “Renewal” Misconception, A Follow-Up to the 90-Year Lease Myth

Introduction

This article follows up on our earlier piece, The 90-Year Lease Myth in Thailand, which debunked the long-standing misconception that 30+30+30 lease structures are valid under Thai law. The 2025 Supreme Court decision (Case No. 4655/2566) has recently been celebrated as a “landmark ruling” confirming that only the initial 30-year lease term is enforceable. However, this was already well established in Thai legal doctrine.

Rather than providing new clarity, the judgment simply reaffirms existing law. Its sudden promotion as a breakthrough appears to be more of a strategic narrative shift, an attempt to deflect attention from years of misleading advice and structurally flawed leasehold arrangements sold to foreign investors.

The same kind of misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, is now happening around the newer Sap-Ing-Sith right, introduced under the Sap-Ing-Sith Act B.E. 2562 (2019)^[1]. This article aims to clarify the growing confusion about whether Sap-Ing-Sith rights can be renewed, and whether such renewal can ever be guaranteed.

The Claim: “Sap-Ing-Sith is Renewable”

It is increasingly claimed, especially in marketing materials and forums, that Sap-Ing-Sith rights can be “renewed” for an additional 30-year term, supposedly offering a more secure or flexible alternative to leasehold.
But this too is a myth or at best, a serious legal mischaracterization.

What the Law Says (and Doesn’t Say)

• The Sap-Ing-Sith Act itself makes no mention of renewal^[1].
• Nowhere in the Act is there a clause granting a right to extend, renew, or prolong the term.
• The law allows a maximum term of 30 years, nothing more (Section 5)^[1].

This makes it legally distinct from a lease under the Civil and Commercial Code, which at least contemplates the possibility of renewal after expiry (Section 540)^[2].

What About the Ministerial Regulation?

There is a brief reference to the issue of re-registration in a Ministerial Regulation issued by the Department of Lands in 2020^[4]. However, this regulation does not establish a legal right to renew the Sap-Ing-Sith.

It simply acknowledges that when a Sap-Ing-Sith expires, the parties may enter into a new Sap-Ing-Sith agreement, subject to full re-registration and consent.
This is not a legal renewal. It is, legally speaking, the creation of a brand new right just like an expiring lease.

The Legal Problem with “Renewal Clauses”

• Such a promise is a personal contractual obligation, not a real right^[5].
• Only registered rights bind third parties under Thai law^[5].
• Contractual claims may expire under Thai prescription law (Section 193/33) before the 30 years is up^[2].
• Thai courts have held long-deferred obligations like this as unenforceable^[6].

In other words: a “renewal clause” in a Sap-Ing-Sith agreement made today may be worthless in law by the time it is meant to take effect.

Same Legal Trap, Different Package

• ✅ Just as a lease beyond 30 years must be re-registered
• ❌ So too, Sap-Ing-Sith cannot be “renewed” by right.
• ✅ You can agree to sign a new one later —
• ❌ But you can’t enforce that promise when the time comes.

If it’s not registered, it’s not real. If it’s promised 30 years in advance, it’s (as with leases) likely unenforceable.

Conclusion: Don’t Rely on “Renewal”

While Sap-Ing-Sith is a useful legal tool for long-term land use in Thailand, with more flexible transfer rights than lease, it is not a substitute for permanent ownership. And it certainly does not offer any stronger guarantee of renewal than a lease does.

Buyers, investors, and expats should be cautious of claims that Sap-Ing-Sith provides a secure 60- or 90-year right of use. It doesn’t. It’s a 30-year right, and that’s where the law stops.