However, such powers are purely for the purpose of managing and maintaining the properties. [43] The 1st Defendant had sought to rely on the preamble of the Strata Management Act 2013 which states: - “An Act to provide for the proper maintenance and management of building and common property and for related matters”. Additionally, the 1st Defendant had also relied on Section 21(1) & (2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 and Section 417(1) of the National Land Code to argue that there are no statutory provisions which prohibit the amendment or re-calculation of share units. The 1st Defendant then argued that it is empowered to do all things reasonably necessary for the performance of its duties under the Strata Management Act 2013 to ensure the building and its common property are properly maintained and for the collection of fair charges and / or contribution from the Owners. [44] With respect, I disagree with the 1st Defendant’s argument. There is a plethora of legal authorities to suggest otherwise. In Perbadanan Pengurusan Solaris Dutamas v Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia & Anor [2022] 4 MLJ 397, the Court of Appeal had decided that the powers of a management corporation must be interpreted by adopting a strict approach of the Strata Management Act 2013. Although this case involves on the powers of a management corporation, the legal principle similarly extends to joint management bodies. The Court of Appeal had stated: - “[26] In discharging its management duties, the MC is vested with wide powers as provided for in s 59(2) of the SMA 2013. However, it is vital to note that the powers provided for are purely for the purpose of management and maintenance of the property as prescribed in the SMA. [27] We share the view of the appellant that s 59 of the SMA 2013 comprises statutory powers that cannot be expanded and or varied without an amendment to the statute itself. This was not the intention of the legislature when the SMA 2013 came into force considering its objects and purpose. …. [34] It is now settled law that the powers of the MC as a creature of the SMA 2013 must be interpreted by adopting a strict approach (see Bonifac Lobo a/l Robert v Lobo & Anor v Tribunal Pengurusan Strata, Putrajaya & Ors [2019] 4 MLJ 298; [2019] 1 LNS 680, COA, affirmed by the Federal Court). [45] Further, the Court of Appeal in Ekuiti Setegap Sdn Bhd v Plaza 393 Management Corp (established under the Strata Titles Act 1985) [2018] 4 MLJ 284 also held that a management corporation cannot act beyond what was mandated by the Strata Titles Act: - “Similarly in the instant case, we find that the STA mandated that contributions to the management fund be determined on a share unit basis. Any other basis to determine the quantum of contribution would be contrary to the STA and thus illegal. The fact that the charges levied on the square foot basis are in accordance with the resolutions passed at the plaintiff’s general meeting is immaterial, given that the plaintiff cannot act beyond the provisions of the STA.” [46] Similarly, in Mohamad Nazri bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 645, the Court of Appeal decided that: - “[36] As a creature of statute, the powers of the JMB are limited and circumscribed by the SMA 2013 which regulates it and extend no further than is expressly stated therein, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the purposes of its establishment, or may be fairly regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the legislature has authorised. What the SMA 2013 does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited.” [47] Section 21 of the Strata Management Act 2013 does not expressly empower the 1st Defendant to recalculate the share units in the Development. The 1st Defendant’s power and duties are confined to the scope of Section 21 of the Strata Management Act 2013, which only provides for powers related to the management and maintenance of the Development. The 1st Defendant cannot unilaterally expand or vary its powers beyond what is expressly granted by the Strata Management Act 2013. [48] In Huat Company Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Sunny Ville (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: PA-02NCvC-530-06), the Court of Appeal applied a strict interpretation of the powers of the management corporation and Section 59(2) (e) of the Strata Management Act 2013 and held that a management corporation cannot own immovable property including strata parcels as such power was not expressly provided in the section: - “[5] In general, we agree with the finding of the learned HCJ in relation to the rejection of the appellant's contentions. However, this Court is concerned with the legality of the terms of the High Court order. The High Court order ordered the Land Registrar of Titles to cancel all the strata titles of the said properties, and to declare the said properties (and the accessory parcels) as “common property” and to place them under the management of the respondent. The High Court order also ordered that the share units allocated to the said properties be deleted or cancelled from the total share units allocated to the whole subdivided building. [6] This Court is of the considered view that in substance the application had the effect of circumventing the limited powers granted to the management corporation under the law, particularly s. 59(2)(a) to (j) of the Strata Management Act 2013, the Land Registrar of Title was correct not to effect the transfer because there is no law that permit a management corporation to own immovable property, other than common property. A management corporation is only allowed to purchase, hire or otherwise acquire movable property for use by the proprietors in connection with their use and enjoyment of the common property (see s. 59(2)(e) of the SMA 2013). The fact that the Land Registrar of Title suggested to the respondent to seek a court order to effect its intention could not by itself legitimize the respondent’s application to seek from the court what the law does not provide.” [49] Section 21 of the Strata Management Act 2013 also does not empower the 1st Defendant to enter into the Consent Order on behalf of the Owners. Section 417 of the National Land Code also cannot be invoked as it circumvents Sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Strata Titles Act 1985. These sections establish a comprehensive framework for the subdivision and allocation of share units, including specific procedures for calculating and approving share units. Such procedures cannot be bypassed through a court order. Invoking Section 417 of the National Land Code to enforce the new share allocation unit under the Consent Order would undermine the legislative intent and procedural safeguards entrenched in the Strata Titles Act 1985. The 1st Defendant must apply to recalculate the allocation of share units according to Sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Strata Title Act 1985. [50] In Huat Company Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Sunny Ville, the Court of Appeal held that when there are express provisions under the law for the modification of designated stratified titles, an applicant who wishes to modify, change or delete the designated strata titles from residential to common property must comply with such law: - “[9] In this instant case, the strata titles were issued in accordance with the approved and certified strata title plan. Therefore, the court could not simply grant and order to modify, change or delete the designated strata titles from residential, of otherwise, stratified titles to become a common property title. There is no provision in the law that empowers the court to grant such an order. By granting such order, the court would be usurping and encroaching into the powers of the Director of Lands and Mines and all relevant authorities dealing with strata titles. [10] The law provides that a subdivided building parcel may be either amalgamated with another as parcel and also provides that a parcel may be divided into two or more parcels in accordance with Part V of the STA 1985. The exercise requires the applicant to go through the whole process provided in Part V of the STA 1985, including resubmitting a certified plan by a qualified land surveyor showing all the details of the amalgamation or division, and payment of relevant fees, obtaining approvals from all relevant authorities, redesignating the number of share units of the new parcel and existing parcels and etcetera. The respondent is therefore required to resubmit a fresh certified plan for the modification of the said properties to be approved as common property(ies) in accordance with Part V of the STA 1985. Section 33A of the STA 1985 provides as follows: “Upon the registration of the strata title or titles to the new parcel or parcels upon the division or amalgamation, the parts of any parcel which are created as common property shall be deemed to form part of the common property in relation to all the parcels comprised within the subdivided building or land.” [11] There are express provisions under the law for the modification of designated stratified titles. Therefore, the respondent must comply with the law. The respondent could not circumvent the law by filing the Originating Summons to seek declarations without complying with the relevant law. Whether the respondent should be allowed to modify the said properties from its original status to become common property status should be within the powers and discretion on the Director of Land and Mines, not the Court.” The Consent Order circumvents the Strata Titles Act 1985 or the National Land Code [51] The allocation of the Previous Share Units was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Strata Titles Act 1985. Part II and III of the Strata Titles Act 1985 provide for the procedures governing the subdivision and allocation of share units. This process is stipulated under Sections 10 and 10A of the Strata Titles Act 1985, which outline the following steps: -