Adzni bin Ahmad Fekry v AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD (MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025)

ADZNI BIN AHMAD FEKRY

AHMAD ZAINURRASHID BIN BUNYAMIN

AMIRLIZA BIN BUSU (NRIC NO.: 710312-05-5331) (menyaman untuk pihak sendiri sebagai pemilik benefisial dan/atau berdaftar bagi hartanah-hartanah di projek A’Famosa, Melaka, dan juga bagi pihak pemilik benefisial dan/atau berdaftar lain yang kesemuanya telah membeli hartanah-hartanah bagi projek yang sama daripada Defendan Pertama seperti yang disenaraikan di “Lampiran A” yang dikepilkan bersama-sama dengan Writ Saman Terpinda ini) …PLAINTIFFS 26/04/2026 12:59:17 MA-21NCvC-1-02/2025 Kand. 152

AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD [COMPANY NO.: 199101012982 (223294-D)]

2.

3.

4.

SYARIKAT AIR MELAKA BERHAD (SAMB) [COMPANY NO.: 200501030101(712238-W)]

INDAH WATER KONSORTIUM SDN BHD [COMPANY NO.: 199101001452(211763-P)]

SW CORP NEGERI MELAKA (dahulunya dikenali sebagai PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL DAN PEMBERSIHAN AWAM) …DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 54) Introduction This is the Fourth Defendant’s (D4) application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Amended Writ and Statement of Claim. D4 is the Majlis Perbandaran Alor Gajah, a local municipal council established under the Local Government Act 1976. The application is brought pursuant to all four limbs of Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”). The Cause Papers are as such: - a. Amended Writ of Summons dated 11.03.2025 : Enclosure 5 b. Statement of Claim dated 26.02.2025 : Enclosure 2 c. D4’s Defence dated 06.06.2025 : Enclosure 25 d. Reply to D4’s Defence dated 20.06.2025 : Enclosure 36 e. D4’s Notice of Application dated 01.08.2025 : Enclosure 54 f. D4’s Affidavit in Support affirmed by Nur Farhanah binti Ehsan on 01.08.2025 : Enclosure 55 g. Plaintiffs’ Affidavit in Opposition affirmed by Amriliza bin Busu on 18.08.2025 : Enclosure 62 h. D4’s Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Nur Farhanah binti Ehsan on 08.09.2025 : Enclosure 71. This Court also considered legal arguments as disclosed by each party in their written submissions and highlighted by counsels during the hearing of 14.01.2026. - D4’s Written Submissions : Enclosure 93 - Plaintiffs’ Submissions in Reply : Enclosure 98

The Plaintiffs, together with 32 other individuals named in Annexure A of the Amended Writ, commenced this action against several Defendants. The cause of action is said to arise from a contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and D1.

D1 is the developer of bungalow units in Mukim Pagoh, Daerah Alor Gajah, Negeri Melaka, with a postal address at A’Famosa Resort, Jalan Kemus, Simpang Ampat, 78000 Alor Gajah (“the Project”).

Between 1997 and 2003, the Plaintiffs individually entered into Sale and Purchase Agreements with D1 for the acquisition of bungalow units in the Project. The Statement of Claim pleaded that each lot carried its own individual title, issued by D3.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Project resembled, in substance, a landed strata development. They contend that they were compelled to execute an unlawful Deed of Mutual Covenants with D1, a common feature of strata developments.

Generally, such developments consist of landed homes (terrace, semi-detached, detached, or townhouses) within gated-and-guarded communities, which are deemed common properties, managed by a management corporation (MC) under the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013). They offer shared facilities, security and consistent landscaping but require monthly maintenance fees. However, the Plaintiffs alleged that the said Project was not a landed strata development.

The Plaintiffs, despite having entered into agreements in relation thereto a considerable time ago, have now further alleged that their consent to the agreements executed in what resembled a landed strata development was vitiated by undue influence, misrepresentation, and nondisclosure on the part of D1. Paragraphs 12 to 21 of the Amended Statement of Claim particularised these allegations, asserting breaches of multiple laws.

From the beginning until paragraph 21 of the Amended Statement of Claim, no specific allegations were directed against the other Defendants, save for assertions that as government bodies and/or authorities, namely D2 and D4 to D7, they bore statutory obligations to provide utilities, maintenance, and waste management services.

The Plaintiffs subsequently alleged, in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Amended Statement of Claim, that the said government bodies or authorities failed to investigate or act upon their complaints against D1. They contend that D2 to D4 and D6 to D7 knowingly permitted D1’s unlawful conduct, neglected their statutory duties, yet continued to levy assessment and land taxes upon the Plaintiffs. This was allegedly the Plaintiff’s cause of action against D2 and D4 to D7.

The said paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim stated as follows: - “22. Pada 25.04.2024, Plaintif-plaintif telah melalui surat peguamcara Plaintif-plaintif, Tetuan Ng Kian Nam & Partners membuat aduan berkenaan perkara-perkara di atas kepada Defendan-defendan dan meminta mereka untuk membuat penyiasatan, penjelasan dan mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap D1.

Namun selain menerima balasan surat daripada D1 dan D5, Defendan-defendan lain langsung tidak membalas surat peguamcara Plaintif-plaintif menunjukkan bahawa mereka iaitu D2-D4 dan D6-D7 sememangnya mempunyai pengetahuan penuh berkenaan pelbagai tindakan tidak sah yang dilakukan oleh D1 selama ini, tetapi masih secara bias membenarkan tindakan D1 berbuat demikian tanpa menghiraukan kepentingan Plaintif-plaintif, malahan masih gagal dan/atau ingkar dan/atau enggan dan/atau secara cuai, tidak mengambil-alih pelbagai tugas perundangan mereka di Projek tersebut bagi para pembeli termasuk Plaintif-plaintif sehingga hari ini, sedangkan selama ini juga telah mengenakan caj cukai pintu dan cukai tanah terhadap Plaintif-plaintif secara berterusan.” (emphasis added)

Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim further pleaded that the failure of D2 to D7 to enforce the law or discharge their statutory duties caused serious prejudice to the Plaintiffs and other purchasers. “24. Kegagalan D2 sehingga D7 untuk menguatkuasakan undang-undang negara kita dan/atau melaksanakan tugas-tugas perundangan mereka secara sengaja, telah menyebabkan prejudis yang serius dan tidak adil ke atas Plaintif-plaintif dan para pembeli dan pelabur bagi Projek tersebut.”

To put it simply, whilst the cause of action against D1 is based on contract, the cause of action against the other defendants in this suit is based on the alleged failure of the Defendants to respond or comply with the Plaintiffs’ letter of demand dated 25.04.2024, demanding that the authorities take action against D1.

According to the Plaintiffs, since no action or reply was forthcoming, a declaratory order was sought against D2 to D7, as per paragraph 26(f) of the Statement of Claim which reads: - “(f) Satu deklarasi untuk mengarahkan D2 sehingga D7 untuk secara serta-merta mengambil-alih daripada D1 tugas-tugas perundangan (‘statutory duties’) mereka di sekitar Kawasan Hartanah-hartanah tersebut di Projek tersebut, termasuk perkhidmatan bekalan air, pembetungan, kutipan sisa pepejal, penyelenggaraan kawasan lapang, jalan dll;….”

D4’s stance is fairly straightforward. Whatever orders sought by the Plaintiffs cannot be granted in this action. Hence, this application to strike out the entire Amende Writ and Statement of Claim.

Applications to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claims were also filed by D2, D3, D6, and D7. Those applications were allowed with costs. The suit now survives only against D1 and D5. The Plaintiffs have appealed solely against the dismissal of their claim against D4.

Analysis The central issue is the nature of the Plaintiffs’ claim against D4. The pleadings suggest that D4, as a local municipal council, failed to enforce the law in relation to the Project.

However, the allegations are couched in broad and emotive terms, lacking particulars of bias or misconduct, and I must add, devoid of any substance. They appear calculated to sensationalise what is, at its core, a contractual dispute with D1.

I only need to look at the phrase used at paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim:- “….pelbagai tindakan tidak sah yang dilakukan oleh D1 selama ini, tetapi masih secara bias membenarkan tindakan D1 berbuat demikian tanpa menghiraukan kepentingan Plaintif-plaintif…”

No particulars of the alleged bias were provided and based on the circumstances; it can only mean to merely provoke or sensationalise what is essentially a contractual dispute.

The law prescribes proper avenues to compel action by a local authority and that, falls within the realm of applications for judicial review or specifically, for an order of mandamus as provided under and governed by Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012, Specific Relief Act 1950 and Courts of Judicature Act 1964. A mandamus is a judicial command issued by the Court to a public body or authority ordering them to perform a mandatory public duty they failed to do. It ensures public authorities follow the law, often used when an officer refused to act or delays a specific non-discretionary duty.

The Plaintiffs’ attempt to invoke judicial intervention in this manner is misconceived. The pleadings reveal an effort to exert administrative or political pressure through the courts, rather than to establish a sustainable cause of action. An obvious abuse of court process in my view.

I am in full agreement with the case cited in support of D4’s case of Siti Syarifah Aibiddin v. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara Malaysia & 2 Ors [2024] CLJU 1766.

The dispute before this Court is, in substance, contractual and lies between the Plaintiffs and D1. The claims against D4 are unsustainable in law.

The Law The principles governing applications to strike out are well established. Order 18 Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to strike out any pleading on four grounds:-

that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;

that it is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious;

that it may prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action; or

that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

The jurisdiction to strike out is a summary one, exercised sparingly and only in plain and obvious cases. The Court must be satisfied that the claim is unsustainable in law or fact, and that allowing it to proceed would serve no useful purpose.

The locus classicus of Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors v United Malayang Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 as decided by the Supreme Court then, will always come to mind, in particular the following passage: -

In this respect as well, this Court is also reminded of the importance of pleadings as laid down by the Court of Appeal in The Carbon Co.Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ng Lee Hoon (conducting under ‘Forest Wood Flooring’) [2017] 4 MLJ 791 where it was held: -

CONCLUSION Applying these principles, the Plaintiffs’ claim against D4 is untenable. The allegations are vague, unparticularised, and rest upon broad assertions of bias and failure to enforce statutory duties.

It is an attempt to bypass existing provisions of the law in respect of judicial review applications and the strict safeguards provided by the mandatory provisions of Order 53 of the Rules of Court.

The Plaintiffs’ attempt to transform a contractual dispute with D1 into a claim against D4 is misconceived. The pleadings are couched in emotive language, but they fail to establish any legal nexus between D4 and the Plaintiffs’ contractual grievances.

The claim against D4 is, in substance, scandalous and vexatious. It seeks to embroil the Court in matters of administrative discretion and political oversight, which lie outside the proper scope of judicial determination in this context.

To permit the claim to proceed would prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of the action, diverting attention from the contractual issues properly arising between the Plaintiffs and D1.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Amended Writ and Amended Statement of Claim, insofar as they relate to D4, are obviously unsustainable. The pleadings are frivolous, vexatious, and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, the application by D4 is allowed under Order 18 Rules 19(1)(b) and (d). The Plaintiffs’ claim against D4 is struck out with costs of RM6,000.00 subject to allocatur. Dated 24th April 2026 ISA AZIZ IBRAHIM JUDICIAL COMMISIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MALACCA For the Plaintiffs : Fong Lee Wee M/s Ng Kiam Nam & Partners For the 4th Defendant : Shamsul Akmal Isa