SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2431

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD HUSAIRI ALI & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SUDITASIA (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-96-02/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:R Vigneswaran Raju,Roshini Ramasamy,Lavaniya Balan ,Respondent Advocate: Chris Y H Tan,Nur Syahirah Ramli

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) Plaintiffs have rights to obtain strata titles from the defendant under STA 1985. - (!) (!) SPAs entered between 2004-2014; statutory duty to apply for subdivision/strata titles; six months/three months timelines as per STA amendments. - (!) (!) First issue confined to Category A (Schedule H SPAs) as to breach regarding obtaining strata titles; Category B and C excluded from that issue. - (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Trial held; defendant delayed in obtaining strata titles; no third-party delay evidence accepted; court found failure to obtain within a reasonable time. - (!) Category A plaintiffs proved losses due to both contractual and statutory breaches; evidence supported deprivation of ownership and impact on ability to sell/use property. - (!) (!) (!) Damages awarded: RM10,000 per plaintiff with 5% interest from filing date; not RM50,000 per plaintiff. - (!) (!) Reliefs: decree for specific performance and costs RM30,000 (allocatur). - (!) (!) Distinction and analysis of SPA types to identify applicable contractual clauses governing strata title obligations. - (!) Law places statutory duty on developer to apply for strata titles; no exemption in STA 1985. - (!) (!) (!) 3rd Issue finding deprivation of usage/enjoyment due to failure to deliver strata titles. - (!) (!) Distinguishes authorities in quantum; supports RM10,000 per plaintiff.

What is the defendant's breach status regarding obtaining individual strata titles under the STA 1985, and what damages/reliefs flow from that breach?

What factors justify awarding damages to the plaintiffs for deprivation of usage and enjoyment due to the failure to deliver strata titles, and what is the quantum?

What is the court’s determination on which categories of SPAs (Category A Schedule H SPAs, Category B CCC SPAs, Category C Sub-sale SPAs) are applicable to the first issue and the extent of the relief granted?


JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

[1] The Plaintiffs commenced the action after waiting between 8 years to 18 years since they purchased their respective residential units at the "Ampang Boulevard Condominium" for their strata titles where the developer was the defendant.

[2] After having considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence and written submissions and oral clarification by the learned counsel representing the parties, on 26 June 2025, I allowed the plaintiffs' claim for:

(a) a decree for specific performance to be issued against the defendant requiring the defendant to complete the process of subdividing the building and delivering the strata titles for each of the units to the Plaintiffs;

(b) damages for the losses incurred due to the defendant's delay in completing the process to deliver the strata title to the plaintiffs in the sum of RM10,000.00 to each plaintiff with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 15 February 2022 (date of filing of the Writ and Statement of Claim) until full realisation; and

(c) costs of RM30,000.00, subject to allocatur.

[3] The Defendant is aggrieved with the entire decision while the plaintiffs are dissatisfied by part of the decision where damages were awarded in the sum of RM10,000.00 to each plaintiff.

[4] These are my full grounds of judgment for purposes of the parties' appeals.

Background Facts

[5] The Defendant is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia with a registered address at 1D-3 (2nd Floor), Mayang Plaza, Jalan SS 6/9, 47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor and a business address at No. 28, Lorong Tiara 1B, Bandar Baru Klang, 41150 Klang, Selangor.

[6] The Agreed Facts for the trial are as follows:.

[7] At all material times, the defendant is the registered owner of a property held under master title Pajakan Negeri 30917, Lot 43530 s 16 (formerly known as No. Hak milik H.S.(D) 80038, P.T. 6472, Mukim Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan) ('Property').

[8] The Defendant developed the Property into a residential project known as the "Ampang Boulevard Condominium" ('Condominium'). The project was commenced by the defendant in 2004.

[9] Subsequently, the plaintiffs have duly signed the Sale and Purchase Agreement ('SPA') with the defendant and/ or prior purchasers who had previously bought from the defendant.

[10] The particulars of the SPA are as follows::

[11] The relevant primary terms in the SPA are as follows::

"8. Time Essence of Contract

Time shall be of the essence of the contract concerning all provisions of this Agreement.

9. Events of Default

9.1 Vendor's Default

Provided that the Purchaser has complied with all the conditions contained herein and if the Vendor fails to comply with their obligations under this Agreement, the Purchaser shall have the right to specific performance of this Agreement.

11. Separate Strata Title and Transfer of Title

(1) The Vendor shall, at its own cost and expense and as expeditiously as possible, apply for the subdivision of the said Building to obtain the issuance of a separate strata title to the said Parcel under the Strata Title Act 1985.

31. Common Rights of Purchaser

(2) The Vendor hereby undertakes that the Purchasers of parcels comprised in the said housing development shall enter into similar covenants and further undertakes to ensure that in the event of any transfer of the said Parcel from the Purchaser to a subsequent purchaser, the latter shall undertake to be bound by the covenants of this clause, which shall continue to apply notwithstanding the completion of the sale and purchase agreement.".

[12] Based on the Strata Titles Act 1985 [Act 318] ('STA 1985'), the plaintiffs have the rights to obtain the strata titles from the defendant.

[13] In light of the above, a Notice of Demand was issued by the plaintiffs' solicitors, Messrs. The Chambers of Waran on 3 May 2021.

[14] Further, the defendant on 19 May 2021 replied to the said Notice of Demand by denying the plaintiffs' claims and had stated as follows::

(a) The De


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top