Back
2018 MarsdenLR 1579
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DATO MANOKARAN VERAYA – Appellant
Versus
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN APARTMEN KAYANGAN & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: C-02(NCVC)(W)-198-01/2017 & C-02(NCVC)(W)-393-03/2017]
Management corporations must obtain unanimous consent for altering common property, as stipulated in the Strata Titles Act 1985.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The court examined the legality of the construction of a Restaurant and mini market on common property as per the Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318). Facts of the Case: Consolidated appeals were brought against the High Court's ruling dismissing the Plaintiff's claim against the 3rd Defendant for nuisance and allowing the 3rd Defendant's counter-claim for maintenance charges.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the 3rd Defendant had no authority to convert common property without unanimous consent from parcel owners.
Issues: The key question was whether the management corporation had the authority to exploit common property for income-generating purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that alteration of common property requires unanimous consent as stipulated in s 42 of the Act.
Result: Both appeals are dismissed, and the High Court's decision is affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the consolidated appeals involving nuisance claims. (Para 1 , 3) |
[1] There are two appeals before us which were consolidated and heard together by virtue of this Courts order on 25 April 2017. The appeals are as follows:-
(a) Appeal No: C-02(NCVC)(W)-198-01/2017 ("Appeal 198"), appeal by Dato Manokaran Veraya, who was the plaintiff in the High Court; and
(b) Appeal No: C-02(NCVC)(W)-393-04/2017 ("Appeal 393"), appeal by Perbadanan Pengurusan Apartmen Kayangan who was the 3rd Defendant in the High Court.
[2] For ease of reference, parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court ie Dato Manokaran Veraya as the Plaintiff and Perbadanan Pengurusan Apartmen Kayangan as the 3rd Defendant.
[3] The consolidated appeals emanate from the High Courts decision given on 13 December 2016. Appeal 198 is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the High Courts decision in dismissing the Plaintiffs claim against the 3rd Defendant for nuisance, and allowing the 3rd Defendants counter-claim for the outstanding maintenance charges in the sum of RM 56,578.79. As for Appeal 393, it is an appeal by the 3rd Defendant against the High Courts order that the existing Common Area Construction be demolished and removed permanently.
