JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] This was an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') made on 31 January 2024 in allowing the plaintiffs' claim whereby the defendant was ordered to pay the following to the plaintiffs:

(a) RM93,001.02 to the 1st Plaintiff ('P1');

(b) RM62,330.28 to the 2nd Plaintiff ('P2');

(c) RM96,425.08 to the 3rd Plaintiff ('P3');

(d) RM82,110.30 to the 4th until 6th Plaintiffs ('P4-P6');

(e) interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amounts as stated in paragraphs (a) to (d) above, respectively, calculated from 17 May 2019 until the date of full settlement;

(f) costs for this action in the sum of RM10,000.00; and

(g) interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the sum of RM10,000.00 from the date of judgment until the date of full settlement pursuant to O 59 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ('RC 2012').

[2] After having considered the Record of Appeal and submissions by the parties, I had allowed the appeal and the order made by the SCJ was varied such that the appellant was to pay to the respondents, as follows:

(a) RM21,279.90 to the 1st Respondent;

(b) RM1,340.44 to the 2nd Respondent;

(c) RM2,073.66 to the 3rd Respondent; and

(d) RM15,986.08 to the 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents.

[3] The Appellant's solicitors wrote to the Court on 10 July 2025 to inform that they will be filing a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[4] These are my full grounds for the decision.

Brief Background Facts

[5] Henceforth, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court .

[6] The Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 with its registered address at Tingkat Bawah, Wisma Ekovest, No 118, Jalan Gombak, 5300 Kuala Lumpur.

[7] The Plaintiffs had, vide the following Sale and Purchase Agreements ('SPA'), purchased their respective residential units at the project developed by the defendant known as "EkoCheras" ('Project'):

[8] Prior to the execution of the SPA, plaintiffs paid Booking Fees for the residential units as follows:

[9] Before undertaking the construction works, the defendant had applied to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government ('KPKT') for an extension of time ('EoT') to complete the Project within 48 months instead of 36 months.

[10] On 18 October 2013, KPKT approved the defendant's application and therefore the defendant reflected the timeline for delivery of vacant possession as 48 months in cls 25 and 27 of the SPA.

[11] Upon completion of the Project, the defendant issued the Notice of Vacant Possession dated 2 May 2019 to the plaintiffs. Hence, pursuant to cl 26(3) of SPA, the plaintiffs are deemed to have taken possession of the units on 16 May 2019.

[12] On 20 December 2018, the Architect issued the certification of completion of the Common Facilities on 18 December 2018.

[13] Vide letters to the plaintiffs dated 16 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 to the plaintiffs ('Settlement Letters'), the defendant paid liquidated damages ('LAD') to the plaintiffs for late delivery of vacant possession of their units and of the Common Facilities, respectively. The Plaintiffs signified their unconditional acceptance of the LAD on the terms and conditions as set out in the Settlement Letters.

[14] The Plaintiffs alleged that, after obtaining legal advice, they discovered that the period of 48 months as stated in the SPA is contrary to Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 whereby the period of vacant possession should be for 36 months only and the calculation of that period shall start from the date of payment of the Booking Fees or of the SPA, whichever is earlier.

[15] This led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs against the defendant on 18 March 2021 to claim for the reliefs as pleaded in para 24 of the Statement of Claim ('SoC') ie akin to the amounts as ordered by the SCJ and set out in para 1 above.

[16] The Defendant contended, among others, that it had given a loan incentiv