Ahmad Amir Bin Abdullah & 110 Org v Segi Objektif (M) Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCvC-255-04/2021)

AHMAD AMIR BIN ABDULLAH

BERKES BINTI NAWAWI

AZIMAH BINTI UMAR

ABDOL RANI BIN OSMAN

AINI FARIZA BINTI ABDUL RANI

ABDUL RASHID BIN ABDUL HALIM

IZAHAN SYEMYLONA BINTI ISHAK

ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HUSSEIN

AZAHARI BIN HUSSEIN (NO. K/P: 510615-08-5961) 05/03/2026 08:03:49

CHE YANG BT IBRAHIM

MOHD ISA BIN IDRIS

DR HJH WAN ROSIAH BTE AB-RASHID

DATIN RUSLI BT OTHMAN

SAAMAH BINTI CHE DAN

FAISAL BIN ZAINOL ALAM

NUR’ALIAH BINTI AMIRUDIN

AMIRUDDIN BIN MAT SOM

NOORZARINA BTE MOHD SOM

HALIZA BTE SOM

JULIA BINTI AZMI

MOHD TERMIZI BIN MUHAMMAD

MOHD HASBULLAH B. SAIDIN

SAIDIN B. MOHD SUKOR

JAMALUDDIN BIN WAN SEMAN

ROHAIZAH BT ABDULLAH

KAMARUDDIN BIN MOHAMED

KU ABDUL HALIM BIN KU BULAT

AZIZAH BINTI AB AZIS

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MOHAMAD AZZAHARI

MOHD FIRUZ BIN BUSHRA

MARIAH BINTI SAMAD

MOHD ILIAS BIN OMAR

SITI SALIAH BINTI MOHD ILIAS

SALMAH BINTI MARJANI

MOHD KHALID BIN WAHAB

MAHAMUD SAYUTI BIN ABD HALIM

MOHD SABRY BIN RAMLI

MAIMON BINTI ZAID

MOHAMED NORAZHAR BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN

NOR FAIRANI BINTI AHMAD

MD ISA BIN YACOB

NORUZAINA BINTI ABD AZIZ

ROSLAN BIN MOHAMAD

NOOR ZAITUN BINI BIDIN

ZALINA BINTI BIDIN

NOOR EZZUDDIN BIN GHAZALI AZMI

NG TUA BAK

NORAZIZAH KASIM

NOORHAYATI BINTI ABDUL KADIR

ROSMANI BIN TALIB

ROHIZAH BINTI MD ZAIN

RAHMAT BIN ASHARI

ROSNITA DARUS

ROKIAH HAMZAH

ROSLI BIN RAMLI

ARIZA BIN ARIFIN

MOHAMAD FADIL BIN MOHAMED

RAZIFAH BINTI MOHD BADRI

RODZY BIN AHMAD

RAJA AZLAN BIN RAJA ISMAIL

ROZITA MOHD YUSOF

BAHARI BIN MAD DOM

RADZIAH BINTI YAHAYA

AHMAD BIN TAHIR

ROSELAWATY BINTI SHAMSUDIN

SITI ROHANAH BINTI KARIM

NURUL AMIRA BINTI ZAKHI

SHUKRI BIN MOHD SAAD

NURSYUHADA JOYCE BT ABDULLAH

SALMI BINTI ABDULLAH

SHOHATI BIN KASSIM

SELVARAJAN A/L SANTIAU

MOHD ARIF BIN YAACOB

ROHIMAH BINTI ARSHAD

SHARIFAH NOR’ ASYIKIN SYED HUSSEIN

LETCHUMANAN A/L KATHARAVELOO

SUSILA DEVI A/P GOVINDASAMY

KISUNTHI A/P LETCHUMANAN

SANIAH BT MOHD JAMHARI

SADIDI B. ABDUL RAZAK

SHUIB@ SUNYOB BIN AHMAD

FAUZIAH BINTI YUSOFF

YUSOFF BIN MOHD AMIN

CHARLES SANTHAKUMAR A/L F ANTHONY DAS

ZAPPERI B. AHMAD

ROSLINA BTE ABU BAKAR

ZURAIDA BINTI AB HALIM

ZAITON BINTI MD YASIN

ZAHARUDDIN B. AHMAD ZAYADI

AZWAZATON BTE ABD AZIZ

ZAWIYAH BINTI YUSOFF

ABDUL GHANI KANESAN BIN ABDULLAH

MASRI BIN MUSTAPHA

MATTHEW KO SWEE LEONG

JOSEPHINE NG

SURAYA BEE BINTI ABU BAKAR

AHMAD SHARANON BI MD SHAARANI

AHMAD KHAIRUDI BIN MAHIDIN

SHANTHI A/P K. RAMADASS

VASANTA MOHAN A/L RAMASAMY

ABDULLAH BIN YUSOP

NOOR AINI BINTI HASSAN

AHMAD ZAHRIN BIN JAMALUDDIN

NUR FAZZILAH BINTI JAMALUDDIN

ABU BAKRI BIN MAT SAAD

ROHANA BINTI SALLEH

RAJA BARIZAN BINTI RAJA SULAIMAN

VASANTHA A/P NARAYANAN

SUBRAMANIAM A/L MUNIANDY

HISHAM BIN HAMZAH

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SURIA (J&M) LAKE TOWN A&B …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF [kesemua menyaman dalam kapasiti peribadi dan juga sebagai wakil kepada kesemua satu ratus sepuluh

Pembeli-Pembeli unit-unit kediaman dan Badan Pengurusan Bersama (JMB) dalam projek pembangunan H.S.(D) 7398, No: P.T.1825 di Mukim Gunong Semanggol, Daerah Kerian, Negeri Perak yang terdiri daripada servis apartment yang dikenali sebagai Suria Laketown (‘subjek projek tersebut’)] DAN

SEGI OBJEKTIF (M) SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 236717-X) (SUBSIDIARI BAGI MK LAND HOLDINGS BERHAD

OOI ENG HAI

SUBHAS A/L N.K KANAN

KAMARULZAMAN BIN ABU BAKAR

LAU SHU CHUAN (NO. K/P: 600522-01-5963) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This action arises from a long-standing dispute between purchasers of residential units in a stratified development known as Suria Laketown (“the Development”) located on land held under HS(D) 7398, PT 1825, Mukim Gunong Semanggol, Daerah Kerian, Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan, together with the Joint Management Body (“JMB”) established in respect of the Development, and the developer and related parties.

The Plaintiffs comprise parcel purchasers within the Development together with the JMB, namely “Badan Pengurusan Bersama Suria Laketown A & B”, which was established pursuant to the Strata Management Act 2013.

The 1st Defendant, Segi Objektif (M) Sdn Bhd, is the developer of the Development. The remaining Defendants are parties associated with or involved in aspects of the Development.

The Plaintiffs’ claims arise from alleged failures on the part of the Defendants, particularly the 1st Defendant as developer, to fulfil their statutory, contractual, and fiduciary obligations relating to the subdivision of the Development, the issuance of strata titles, the management and delivery of common property, and the completion of infrastructure serving the Development.

The core grievance advanced by the Plaintiffs concerns –

the prolonged and unjustified delay in the establishment of proper strata management through a purchaser-controlled management body;

the consequential impact of that delay upon their statutory and proprietary rights (including in relation to strata titles and common property); and

the treatment of facilities represented to purchasers as common property, in particular the swimming pool.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, mandatory orders, and consequential relief arising from the Defendants’ alleged breaches.

The Defendants deny liability and contend that their actions were lawful and within their contractual rights, including reliance on Clause 32 of the Sale and Purchase Agreements (“SPAs”). The Defendants also advance a counterclaim for alleged outstanding maintenance charges.

This matter proceeded to a full trial. The Court heard oral testimony, considered witness statements and documentary evidence, and received written and oral submissions from counsel.

The grounds of Judgment are provided to explain and elaborate upon the decision delivered and the orders made.

The Development is a stratified residential development undertaken by the 1st Defendant on land held under HS(D) 7398, PT 1825, Mukim Gunong Semanggol, Daerah Kerian, Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.

Purchasers, including the individual Plaintiffs, entered into SPAs with the 1st Defendant for the purchase of their respective units. At all material times, the 1st Defendant was the entity responsible for undertaking the development and fulfilling the obligations imposed upon it by law and under the SPAs.

It is not disputed that Certificates of Fitness for Occupation (and subsequently Certificates of Completion and Compliance) were issued in respect of the Development, thereby enabling vacant possession of the units to be delivered to purchasers.

However, it is also not disputed that the subdivision of the Development into individual strata titles and the establishment of a purchaser-controlled management body did not occur contemporaneously with the delivery of vacant possession, but only several years thereafter.

Notwithstanding this, a purchaser-controlled statutory management body was not established for many years thereafter. The evidence shows that the first annual general meeting for the purpose of forming the JMB was held on 29.12.2016, and the JMB was formally established on 10.4.2017.

The prolonged period between the issuance of the CFO and the delivery of vacant possession and the establishment of the JMB forms the central factual backdrop of this dispute. During this prolonged period, management and decisions affecting the Development and its facilities were carried out without the involvement of a duly constituted purchaser-controlled management body.

The Plaintiffs contend that the delay in the issuance of strata titles, the prolonged retention of management control by the developer, and the failure to properly deliver and complete infrastructure and common property caused prejudice to the purchasers and constituted breaches of the developer’s obligations.

In particular, the Plaintiffs contend that certain infrastructure, including the external road infrastructure serving the subject property, and certain common property, were not completed or rendered fully usable in a timely manner.

The Plaintiffs further contend that representations were made regarding facilities forming part of the common property, and that the purchasers’ rights in relation to such facilities were adversely affected by the Defendants’ conduct.

The Defendants dispute these allegations and contend that the subdivision process, management arrangements, and completion of infrastructure were undertaken in accordance with legal requirements and practical constraints inherent in the development process. C. PLEADINGS Plaintiff’s claim

The Plaintiffs’ claims, as pleaded in the Statement of Claim, include, among others, the following relief:

declarations relating to the Defendants’ obligations in respect of the subdivision of the Project and the issuance of strata titles;

declarations relating to the Plaintiffs’ rights in respect of the common property;

an order directing the Defendants to complete the external road infrastructure of the subject property;

an order directing the Defendants to complete and ensure that the common property is capable of being used;

consequential relief arising from the Defendants’ alleged breaches; and

such further or other relief as the Court deems fit.

The Defendants deny liability and contend, inter alia, that:

they have complied with their statutory and contractual obligations;

the subdivision process and issuance of strata titles were undertaken in accordance with applicable procedures;

any delay was not attributable to any breach on their part; and

the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought.

The Defendants further contend that they have acted lawfully and that the Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.

The Defendants deny liability and rely inter alia on Clause 32 of the SPAs. The Defendants also counterclaim for alleged outstanding maintenance charges.

On the pleadings issue, the Court is satisfied that the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, namely the delay in strata management, its consequences, and the treatment of common property, was fairly pleaded, fully ventilated at trial, and addressed in submissions.

Having regard to the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, the central issue for determination is whether there was an inordinate or unjustified delay by the 1st Defendant, as developer, in facilitating the establishment of the JMB, and whether such delay constituted a breach of its statutory and legal obligations.

Arising from and consequential to this central issue are the following subsidiary issues:

whether such delay carried legal consequences affecting the Plaintiffs’ rights, including in relation to the issuance of strata titles and the management and delivery of common property;

whether the treatment or handling of the swimming pool, including any subdivision or boundary adjustments affecting it, was lawful, having regard in particular to the Defendants’ reliance on Clause 32 of the SPAs; and

whether the Defendants have proved their counterclaim. E. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Both parties called witnesses at trial. The Plaintiffs called the purchasers and representatives of the JMB, while the Defendants called officers and representatives of the developer and related entities.

The evidence adduced by the parties addressed, among others, the chronology of the Development, the formation of the JMB, the developer’s role during the intervening period, the handling of the swimming pool, and the Defendants’ counterclaim.

The Plaintiffs' evidence, in substance, was that vacant possession had long been delivered, yet for many years there was no duly constituted purchaser-controlled management body. They testified that during this period they were deprived of effective statutory representation and oversight, and that decisions affecting the Development and facilities were made without proper purchaser participation.

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that the swimming pool was part of the original Development offering and was held out to purchasers as a shared facility. They treated it as common property and disputed the Defendants’ treatment or handling of the pool, including matters affecting its status and boundaries.

The Defendants called, among others, officers and representatives associated with the developer. The Defendants’ witnesses confirmed the chronology of the JMB’s establishment (AGM on 29.12.2016; formal establishment on 10.4.2017) and confirmed that prior to the establishment of the JMB, management and maintenance of the Development were undertaken by the developer.

The Defendants relied on Clause 32 of the SPAs to justify that the developer could amend layout plans, vary boundaries, and make modifications to the Development. The Defendants also advanced a counterclaim for outstanding maintenance charges, but the evidential support for the counterclaim was limited.

Chronology of Vacant Possession and Absence of JMB

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that they had purchased residential parcels within the Development pursuant to SPAs entered into with the 1st Defendant.

They confirmed that vacant possession of their respective parcels was delivered following the issuance of Certificates of Fitness for Occupation. Despite taking possession of their parcels, the Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that no JMB was established for many years thereafter. During this period, the management and control of the Development remained under the developer.

(ii) Evidence Relating to the Swimming Pool

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that the swimming pool formed part of the Development and was represented to purchasers as a shared facility. They understood the swimming pool to be part of the common facilities intended for the collective use of parcel proprietors.

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses further testified that disputes arose when issues concerning the swimming pool, including matters relating to its treatment and status, were handled without the involvement of a

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses maintained that they had not been afforded the opportunity to participate collectively in decisions affecting the swimming pool through a properly constituted statutory management body.

(iii) Legal Consequences of Absence of JMB

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that the prolonged absence of the JMB affected their ability to exercise their rights as parcel proprietors.

In particular, they were unable to participate in the management and oversight of common property and matters affecting the Development.

They maintained that this caused prejudice to their rights and interests.

Role and Responsibility of Developer

The Defendants’ witnesses confirmed that the 1st Defendant was the developer of the Development.

Encik Azhar Shaharuddin, a representative of the developer, confirmed that the developer was responsible for applying for the issuance of strata titles pursuant to the SPAs.

This admission establishes that the developer bore responsibility for initiating and pursuing the strata subdivision process.

(ii) Formation of JMB

Puan Rohana binti Awang, a senior officer associated with the developer, confirmed that the JMB was only established following the first annual general meeting held on 29 December 2016. She further confirmed that the JMB was formally constituted on 10 April

She also confirmed that, prior to the establishment of the JMB, the management and maintenance of the Development were undertaken by the developer.

(iii) Management of Development During Period of Delay

The Defendants’ witnesses confirmed that, during the period prior to the establishment of the JMB, the developer exercised management control over the Development. This included responsibility for maintenance and management matters affecting the Development.

(iv) Defendants’ Reliance on Clause 32 of the SPAs

The Defendants’ witnesses relied on Clause 32 of the SPAs in seeking to justify the developer’s authority to amend layout plans, vary boundaries, and make modifications to the Development. The Defendants’ position was that the developer was contractually entitled to take such actions.

Evidence Relating to Counterclaim

The Defendants asserted a counterclaim for alleged outstanding maintenance charges. However, the evidence adduced in support of the counterclaim was limited. Material witnesses necessary to substantiate the counterclaim were not called. The documentary evidence produced was insufficient to establish the counterclaim on the balance of probabilities.

Based on the totality of the evidence, the following facts were established and largely undisputed:

the 1st Defendant was the developer of the Development;

Certificates of Fitness were issued in 2005 and 2010;

vacant possession of parcels was delivered thereafter;

the JMB was only established in 2017;

the developer exercised management control of the Development prior to the establishment of the JMB;

the swimming pool formed part of the Development;

the Defendants relied on Clause 32 of the SPAs; and

the Defendants asserted a counterclaim for alleged outstanding maintenance charges. F. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

The Court will now evaluate this evidence in light of the Issues for Determination.

I am mindful of the principle that courts should not lightly interfere with matters of management discretion. However, where decisions are taken in circumstances that undermine statutory protections afforded to purchasers, judicial intervention is warranted.

In other words, while courts are slow to interfere with matters of management discretion, such deference presupposes the existence of a lawful and representative management structure.

It is my considered view that where, as in the present case, decisions affecting common property are taken in circumstances that undermine statutory protections afforded to purchasers, judicial intervention is justified.

I also believe that this approach is consistent with the scheme of the SMA 2013 and the STA 1985, which vests control of common property in a purchaser-controlled body once the statutory threshold is crossed. However, where decisions are taken in circumstances that undermine statutory protections afforded to purchasers, judicial intervention is warranted. G. ISSUE 1: WHETHER THERE WAS AN INORDINATE OR

The statutory regime governing stratified developments contemplates that, following the delivery of vacant possession and the existence of multiple parcel proprietors, a JMB is to be established to assume responsibility for the management and maintenance of the development.

The establishment of the JMB is a fundamental component of the statutory framework, as it enables parcel proprietors to exercise collective control over matters affecting the development and its common property.

The developer’s role in managing the development is transitional in nature and exists pending the establishment of a purchaser-controlled statutory management body.

The legislative scheme reflects the intention that purchasers should, within a reasonable time, be able to exercise their statutory rights through a properly constituted management body.

The evidence before the Court shows that CFO were issued as early as 2005 (Block A) and 2010 (Block B). Yet the JMB was only properly formed in 2017. This prolonged interval spans many years.

The Court accepts that the existence of multiple parcel proprietors and the statutory strata regime require that a purchaser-controlled management body be established within a reasonable time to enable statutory governance and oversight.

In this present case, no satisfactory explanation was given for the prolonged delay. On the totality of the evidence, the Court finds, as a matter of fact, that the delay in the formation of the JMB was significant and unjustified.

The Court finds that the Defendants did not establish that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond their control or that they had taken timely and reasonable steps to facilitate the establishment of the JMB.

It has to be noted that, the statutory framework governing housing and stratified developments is consumer-protective in nature and is intended to safeguard the proprietary and management rights of purchasers.

The Federal Court in PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor [2021] 2 MLJ 60 emphasised that statutory protections afforded to purchasers must be given full effect and cannot be undermined by the conduct of developers. The developer’s obligations under the statutory regime are not merely procedural but are fundamental to ensuring that purchasers obtain effective control over the management of their development.

In the present case, it is in the opinion of the Court that the prolonged and unjustified delay in the formation of the JMB deprived purchasers of the statutory protections contemplated under the strata regime. This delay therefore, constitutes a breach of the statutory obligations owed by the developer to the purchasers. H. ISSUE 2: WHETHER SUCH DELAY CARRIED LEGAL

The JMB serves as the statutory mechanism through which parcel proprietors exercise collective management and oversight over their development. It enables parcel proprietors to participate in decisions affecting common property and to protect their collective interests.

The prolonged absence of a duly constituted purchaser-controlled management body had real legal consequences. Purchasers were deprived of effective statutory representation and oversight, while decisions affecting the Development and its facilities were taken without proper purchaser participation.

This resulted in decisions affecting the Development and its facilities being undertaken without the involvement of a purchaser-controlled statutory body.

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that this deprived them of the opportunity to exercise their rights as parcel proprietors.

The Court accepts this evidence.

The delay impacted the orderly operation of the statutory strata regime, including matters relating to the issuance of strata titles and the governance and management of common property.

The Court therefore finds that the unjustified delay carried significant legal consequences affecting the Plaintiffs’ rights, including in relation to strata titles and common property.

Such a delay affected the proper functioning of the statutory strata regime and the orderly transition of management control. The Court finds that this resulted in prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ statutory and proprietary rights.

The Court further finds that the prolonged delay in the formation of the JMB created a governance vacuum during which decisions affecting the Development were undertaken without purchaser participation.

This includes matters affecting facilities forming part of the Development, including the swimming pool. Had a JMB been established in a timely manner, purchasers would have been able to exercise their statutory rights and participate collectively in decisions affecting the Development. I. ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE TREATMENT OR HANDLING OF THE

The Court finds on the evidence that the swimming pool formed part of the original Development offering and was held out to purchasers as a shared facility. Purchasers treated it as common property, and their insistence that it be treated as such reflects a legitimate assertion of their statutory and factual rights.

The Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that the swimming pool was presented as part of the facilities available to parcel proprietors and was understood and treated as a shared facility intended for their collective use and enjoyment.

The Court accepts this evidence. There was no dispute that the swimming pool existed as part of the Development and formed part of the overall development offering to purchasers.

The swimming pool was therefore not an incidental or peripheral feature but formed part of the Development as represented to purchasers at the time of purchase.

The Defendants rely on Clause 32 of the SPAs, which in substance reserves to the developer a right to amend layout plans, vary boundaries, and make modifications to the Development, including for purposes of approvals or requirements by the relevant authorities.

Clause 32 of the SPA reads as follows: “notwithstanding the sale of the said Parcel to the Purchaser and any subsequent application for the issue of the strata title to the said parcel, it is hereby declared and agreed that the Vendor shall have the right to retain from the said Land such part or parts thereof or any building thereon as their own property and the same shall be deemed not to be part of the Common Property”.

The Defendants contend that Clause 32 confers upon the developer contractual authority to undertake subdivision or boundary adjustments affecting parts of the Development, including areas involving the swimming pool.

The Court accepts that Clause 32 confers a degree of contractual flexibility upon the developer. However, such contractual provisions must be construed and applied consistently with the statutory framework governing stratified developments, which is consumer-protective in purpose and designed to safeguard purchasers’ proprietary and management rights.

While contractual provisions may confer certain powers upon a developer, such provisions cannot override or undermine statutory protections afforded to purchasers. The Federal Court in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor [2020] 1 MLJ 281 affirmed that statutory protections governing housing and development cannot be contracted out of or circumvented by contractual terms.

Clause 32 cannot operate to displace or undermine the statutory regime. In particular, it cannot be relied upon to justify unilateral decisions affecting facilities held out to purchasers as common property in circumstances where the statutory management structure had not been properly established.

In this case, decisions affecting the swimming pool were taken during a period when no effective purchaser-controlled management body existed, due to the prolonged and unjustified delay in forming the JMB.

In such circumstances, Clause 32 cannot operate as a shield to justify the prolonged non-resolution of the pool’s status, nor can it be used to shift responsibility for the delay onto the Plaintiffs. The Defendants’ reliance on Clause 32 does not render their conduct lawful.

Any exercise of contractual powers affecting facilities forming part of the Development, including the swimming pool, occurred in circumstances where the statutory governance structure intended to protect purchasers had not yet been properly established.

Purchasers acquired their parcels on the basis of representations and the overall development offering, which included the swimming pool as a shared facility. Purchasers were entitled to expect that facilities forming part of the Development would be managed and dealt with within the statutory framework governing stratified developments.

The Plaintiffs’ insistence that the swimming pool be treated as part of the Development and subject to proper statutory management reflects a legitimate assertion of their statutory and proprietary rights. Their actions cannot be characterised as obstruction or prevention but represent an exercise of rights arising from their status as parcel proprietors.

The Court therefore finds that the Defendants’ conduct in relation to the swimming pool was not lawful and resulted in prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ statutory and proprietary rights. J. ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAVE PROVED THEIR

The burden of proof lies on the Defendants in respect of their counterclaim for outstanding maintenance charges.

It is trite law that the burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim or counterclaim, and the party must prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

In the present case, the Defendants have failed to discharge this burden. The absence of material witnesses and insufficient supporting evidence renders the counterclaim unproven.

The Court finds that material witnesses were not called, and the documentary evidence was insufficient to prove the counterclaim on the balance of probabilities. The absence of such witnesses deprived the Court of the opportunity to properly assess the evidential basis of the counterclaim.

The Court is therefore unable to attach significant weight to the documentary evidence in the absence of supporting testimonial evidence explaining its origin, accuracy, and relevance. The Defendants have therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof. The counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety.

Accordingly, and having regard to the nature of the reliefs pleaded in the Statement of Claim, the Court makes the following orders:

A declaration is granted that the 1st Defendant, as the developer of the project, was and remains under a statutory duty to take all necessary and reasonable steps to apply for, procure, and facilitate the issuance of strata titles for the Development in accordance with the applicable strata management and strata titles legislation.

A declaration is granted that the prolonged delay in the formation of the JMB and in the issuance of strata titles constitutes a breach of the 1st Defendant’s statutory obligations, with consequential prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ rights.

An order is made directing the 1st Defendant, within three

months from the date of this Judgment, to take all necessary preparatory and procedural steps required under the applicable statutes for the application of strata titles, and thereafter to proceed with due diligence to complete and facilitate the issuance of strata titles within a total period of twelve (12) months from the date of this Judgment, subject always to compliance with prevailing statutory requirements and the involvement of the relevant authorities.

It is declared that the management of the Development and the treatment of common property during the period of delay were carried out in breach of the statutory obligations owed to the Plaintiffs, with consequential prejudice to their rights.

The 1st Defendant shall take all reasonable and timely steps to complete the outstanding road structure (external road infrastructure) and to complete and render the common property fit for use within six (6) months from the date of this Judgment, subject to compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

The Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety.

Costs of RM50,000 are awarded to the Plaintiffs. L. MONETARY RELIEFS

Insofar as the Plaintiffs seek monetary reliefs, including claims for the refund or transfer of maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions, the rendering of detailed accounts, the payment of specific quantified sums, interest thereon, and other ancillary financial reliefs, the Court is not satisfied that these matters are ripe for final determination at this stage.

While the Court’s findings establish breaches of statutory duty and management obligations on the part of the 1st Defendant, the questions of whether any monetary losses have been suffered, the sums properly attributable to each Plaintiff, and the quantum recoverable, if any, were not sufficiently proved or fully ventilated in the present proceedings.

These monetary claims are therefore reserved for further directions by the Court should the Plaintiffs elect to pursue them, with liberty to apply. Dated: 23rd February 2026 …..………….……………………………………………… (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiffs : Ranjan N Chandran & Fedorah Jane Messrs. Hakem Arabi & Associates Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant 1 : Andrew Davis & Zaitul Naziah Messrs. Andrew Davis & Co.