Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1966
SESSION COURT KUALA LUMPUR
MENARA SAFUAN JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY – Appellant
Versus
CBAL SDN BHD (ENCLS 12 & 13) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-B52NCvC-36-01/2023]
Owners of strata properties are statutorily obligated to pay maintenance charges, and dissatisfaction with services does not constitute a valid defense against non-payment.
Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Sections 25 and 34 - Defendant appealed against the judgment for maintenance charge claims made by the Joint Management Body amounting to RM594,827.00 from 2017 to November 2022 - Duty to pay maintenance charges is statutory and binding upon owners of strata titles - Non-payment amounts to a criminal offence under Section 34 - The maintenance charges are strictly enforceable irrespective of service dissatisfaction or other alleged inadequacies by the plaintiff (Paras 17, 25, 34, 57).
(B) Civil Procedure - Importance of pleadings - Courts are bound by the pleadings; parties are not allowed to introduce new issues not previously raised - No evidence should be presented that is outside the pleadings as this can compromise fair trial principles (Paras 20, 54, 56).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff (Joint Management Body) claimed against defendant (owner of parcel 23-02) for RM594,827.00 maintenance charges under SMA 2013. Defendant admitted legal obligation to pay yet defaulted, raising various defenses including alleged inadequate maintenance (Paras 12, 23).
Findings of Court:
Claim upheld; defendant failed to prove defenses. Plaintiff's claims substantiated through witness testimonies and evidence of accounts, with the burden confirmed as on the defendant to prove any alternate positions (Paras 60, 62).
Issues: Main issue was determining whether the defendant was responsible for the entirety of the maintenance charges under Section 25 of SMA 2013. Further issues on the validity of defenses raised by defendant (Para 16).
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed strict liability under the SMA 2013 for maintenance payments and dismissed defenses that hinged on the plaintiff's alleged failures, reiterating that service dissatisfaction does not negate payment obligations (Paras 25, 27).
Result: Claim allowed with costs.
Key Points: - Owners of strata properties are statutorily obligated to pay maintenance charges, and non-payment amounts to a criminal offense (!) (!) (!) . - Dissatisfaction with services does not justify refusal to pay maintenance charges (!) (!) (!) . - The burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove allegations against the plaintiff (!) (!) .
What is the duty of strata owners regarding payment of maintenance charges under the Strata Management Act 2013?
Does dissatisfaction with services provided constitute a valid defense against payment of maintenance charges?
On whom does the burden of proof lie when disputing the amount of maintenance charges owed?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendant appeals against plaintiff's statutory claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's legal responsibilities under sma 2013. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. management and non-payment details by defendant. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. defendant's defenses regarding maintenance obligations. (Para 15 , 16 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. parties bound by their pleadings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. court's view on adherence to legal procedures and evidence. (Para 25 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. court affirms plaintiff's statutory duties despite defendant's claims. (Para 29 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. court allows plaintiff's claim and outlines decision. (Para 56 , 62) |
Background
[1] The defendant/owner of a parcel in a property files an appeal against the judgment of the Court in allowing the plaintiff's/Joint Management Body's statutory claim after full trial.
[2] In brief, the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the statutory payment of maintenance, services and other charges in the sum of RM594,827.00-3 from 2017 until 2 November 2022 pursuance to Strata Management Act 2013 [ SMA 2013].
Facts
[3] The plaintiff is statutorily established under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act 2007.
[4] The plaintiff is a body known as Joint Management Body [JMB]. The body comprised of the developer and strata owners/purchasers.
[5] The plaintiff's legal duty under SMA 2013 is to maintain the common areas of a building, manage the building funds and collect the maintenance charges from the owner of the unit.
[6] In the present case, the plaintiff manages a strata building known as Menara Safuan at Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
[7] The defendant is the owner of the parcel at Unit 23-02 of Menara Safuan.
[8] The plaintiff has been carrying out management and maintenance of Menara Safuan.
[9] As an ordinary course of business, the plaintiff has been regularly issuing monthly statement on the maintenance charges to the defendant.
[10] However the defendant has failed to make payment to the plaintiff.
[11] The plaintiff then issued notice of demand dated 2 November 2022 to the defendant. The notice is as in Form 11, Strata Management (Maintenance And Management) Regulations 2015. See the notice at p 265 of IDB.
[12] Due to the defendant's refusal to affect the above payment, the plaintiff files the present suit before this Court.
[13] The plaintiff has called 3 witnesses namely;
(a) Naina Mohamed bin Sultan Abdul Kadir, office bearer of plaintiff [SP1];
(b) Wong Wai Onn, property manager by the plaintif [SP2]; and
(c) Nurliyana Afiqah binti Mazlan, account manager of the plaintiff [SP3].
[14] On the other hand, the defendant has called only one witness, Mat Sham bin Ahmad, who is the director and shareholder of defendant [SD1].
Pleaded Defence
[15] In brief, the pleaded defences are as follows:
1. The plaintiff has failed, neglected, and/or refused to maintain Menara Safuan and its common areas adequately;
2. The plaintiff has wound up the developer, Menara Safuan Sdn Bhd;
3. The plaintiff inconsistently has imposed maintenance charges on all unit owners; and
4. The defendant has yet obtained a strata title.
Main Issue
[16] To this Court's humble view, the main and critical issue is whether the defendant is wholly responsible for the entire sum of maintenance charges, including maintenance fees, sinking fund contributions, quit rent, assessment, insurance, late interest in accordance with the provisions of SMA 2013.
The Law
[17] Section 25 of the SMA 2013 imposes a statutory duty on the plaintiff to collect charges, including maintenance charges from parcel owners for the maintenance and management of Menara Safuan. See s 25 as follows:
"Parcel owners to pay Charges, and contribution to the sinking fund, to the joint management body
25(1). Each purchaser shall pay the Charges, and contribution to the sinking fund, in respect of his parcel to the joint management body for the maintenance and management of the buildings or lands intended for su
