Management bodies must determine maintenance rates in proportion to allocated share units, not by square feet, under the Strata Management Act 2013.

(Appeal Against The Sessions Court's Decision)

Preliminary

[1] This is an appeal lodged by the appellant as defendant in the Session Court against the decision of the learned Session Court Judge dated 27 September 2024, which allowed the respondent's claim as the plaintiff therein, effectively ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff maintenance/service charges of RM594,827.03.

[2] The parties herein will be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[3] The defendant is the owner of a unit located in Menara Safuan known as Unit No 23-02, Menara Safuan, No 80, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The plaintiff is a Joint Management Body ("JMB") that runs and manages Menara Safuan.

[5] Under the Strata Management Act 2013 [Act 757], the plaintiff is responsible for maintaining Menara Safuan and may determine the maintenance fees payable by unit owners.

[6] As mandated by the Strata Management Act 2013 , the defendant must pay maintenance charges, sinking funds, and other expenses.

[7] Accordingly, the plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to pay the plaintiffs maintenance and service charges when they were due, resulting in an arrears of RM594,827.03 as of 2 November 2022.

[8] Meanwhile, the defendant argues that its refusal to pay them was justified by the fact that the sum demanded was not specified, including the rate imposed and the basis of calculations. Moreover, maintenance charges were calculated based on square feet instead of a single rate of maintenance/service charges in proportion to the allocated share unit.

Court's Analysis And Findings

[9] According to the defendant, the plaintiff acted ultra vires of the Strata Management Act 2013 by imposing maintenance/service charges based on the square feet of area on the defendant. Despite this, the learned Sessions Court Judge nevertheless allowed the plaintiff's claim, thereby granting an ultra vires claim against the defendant, which was erroneously allowed because the rates imposed by the plaintiff did not comply with the rates prescribed by the .

[10] In this regard, the defendant asserts that the trial judge erred when His Honour failed to adequately consider, decide, and state his reasons with respect to the correctness of the maintenance/service charges rate imposed by the plaintiff. As a result of the same, the defendant argues that the trial judge committed a series of legal errors in His Honour's decision to allow the plaintiff to impose the maintenance/service charges rate on the defendant based on the square feet of area in breach of the prescribed rate under the Strata Management Act 2013 .

[11] In opposition to this appeal, the defendant argues that the issue in relation to the wrong formula of calculation, allegedly not in accordance with the Strata Management Act 2013 , was not pleaded in the defendant's defence and was only raised by the defendant during the submission stage at the Sessions Court.

[12] According to the plaintiff further, it was clearly stated in His Honour's Grounds of Judgment that the Court was not considering this issue since it was not pleaded by the defendant.

[13] The plaintiff, therefore, argues that not only did the learned Sessions Court Judge not commit any appealable errors, but also that this Court should not consider any issue that has not been pleaded. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant must stand or fall on its pleadings.

[14] I shall now address the merits of the parties' respective positions in light of the evidence presented during the trial.

[15] Havi