Back
2019 MarsdenLR 920
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-329-02-2017]
Individual owners in a strata development do not have standing to sue regarding common property, as such rights belong to the Joint Management Body under statutory law.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the rights of the Joint Management Body in relation to owners in a strata development, with a focus on the claims regarding common property and renovation responsibilities as governed by the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. The appellants, as purchasers of shophouses, alleged trespass and nuisance during redevelopment but were found to lack standing to enforce rights related to common property, which is under the JMB's control. The court framed the significant questions regarding the rights of the appellants to sue, determining they cannot challenge redevelopment decisions made by the JMC. The court held that the renovation works were valid and authorized as per statutory provisions. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants challenge renovations based on statutory claims. (Para 1 , 3) |
[1] This appeal raises important questions about the rights and powers of the Joint Management Body vis-a-vis the owners of parcels in a strata-governed building. The subject of the appellants' appeal concerns the shopping centre known as KL Plaza (currently known as "Fahrenheit 88") located at Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur.
[2] The appellants are purchasers of shophouse units in the KL Plaza building. KL Plaza was developed by Lian Seng Properties Sdn Bhd sometime in 1981. The development consisted of shophouses, commercial shop lots and condominiums. It was completed sometime in 1984. It was subsequently redeveloped and renovated by another developer in 2010.
[3] The appellants were not happy with how the renovation and redevelopment were carried out. They alleged trespass and nuisance on the common property by the developer. They commenced the instant suit in 2011 to compel the said developer to restore some of the corridors in the building to their original state. The appellants also claimed for breach of statutory duty against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. After a full trial, the Kuala Lumpur High Court, on 20 January 2017, dismissed the appellants' claim with costs and allowed the 1st respondent's counterclaim in part.
[4] Aggrieved with this decision, the appellants filed this appeal. After having read the written submissions as well as hearing oral arguments on the issues raised, we indicated to the parties that we would deliver our decision on a date to be informed. Having given the appeal our utmost consideration, this is now our decision which shall constitute the judgment of the Court.
Background Facts
[5] The background facts are set out in the grounds of judgment of the learned judge and also in the submission of the parties. In view of the matters raised in the appeal, the background facts, so far as they are relevant to the issues raised in instant appeal, can be restated as follows. Lian Seng Properties Sdn Bhd ("Lian Seng Properties") was the original developer and registered proprietor of 40 pieces of lands situated at Lot 67, Bandar Kuala Lumpur ("Original Lands"), upon which KL Plaza was erected.
[6] It was a mixed development consisting of the following:
- Five-storey Shopping Podium and minimum lettable area of approximately 232,702 sq ft ("Shopping Podium");
- Minimum lettable area of about 38,444 sq ft annexed to the Shopping Podium ("Restaurant Block");
- Ten-storey Office Tower Block above the Shopping Podium ("Office Tower Block");
- Three-storey car park of approximately five hundred seventy three (573) car park bays, twenty nine (29) surface car park bays and sixty (60) motorcycle bays ("Car park Lot");
- Twin Apartment Blocks known as "KL Court" and "KL Heights" respectively consisting of two hundred and sixty six (266) units of apartments ("Apartment Blocks"); and
- One (1) Clubhouse at Level 9 of KL Plaza ("Clubhouse").
[7] In this regard, the Kuala Lumpur City Hall had issued a Certificate for Partial Occupation dated 9 April 1986 (Certificate No 13216) for the Shopping Podium and Shophouses but the Office Tower Block, the Restaurant Block and the Apartment Blocks were only issued with a Temporary Certificate of Occupation.
[8] The 1st to 6th appellants are the original purchasers and the 7th to 13th appellants are sub-sale purchasers of the five-storey Shophouses annexed to the Shopping Podium of KL Plaza. Essentially, the appellants are owners of the 18 out of the 23 Shophouses annexed to the Shopping Podium of KL Plaza. No other owners or categories of owners had brought any such action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.
[9] The 1st respondent is a private limited company incorporated under the law of Malaysia and is part of the Pavilion Group of Companies. The 1st respondent is the current registered proprietor of the land held under Geran 58574, Lot 1322, Section 67, in the Town and District of Kuala Lumpur on
