JUDGMENT

Azizan Md Arshad J:

Introduction

[1] In accordance with O 33, rr 2 and 5, and/or O 14A of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") ("Enclosure 34"), the Plaintiffs applied that their proposed questions be addressed as preliminary issues and/or matters of fact and/or law. This application was granted by this Court on 5 August 2022. The Court also permitted the Defendants to submit their own legal arguments for consideration.

[2] This Court , after hearing the arguments of both parties, has answered the questions raised in favour of the Defendants and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim in its entirety with costs of RM12,000.00. Due to this dissatisfaction, this appeal was filed by the Plaintiffs.

Background Facts (Undisputed)

[3] Based on the parties' arguments, the following facts are not disputed:

(i) The 1st Defendant, Kemuning Setia Sdn Bhd ("Kemuning Setia") was at all material times a housing developer holding a valid Developers License No 11782-1/01-2015/63 issued pursuant to reg 3(6) of the Regulations ("the License")

(ii) The License was issued to Kemuning Setia in respect of a housing development of forty-four (44) 3-storey terrace and forty- eight (48) 3-storey semi-detached houses ("the Units") to be undertaken on a piece of freehold land known as Lot No 1560, s 5, Town of Georgetown, North East District, Penang ("the Land");

(iii) The said housing development was marketed as, and as a consequence, is known as 98 Greenlane;

(iv) Kemuning Setia was also issued an Advertising and Sale Permit in respect of the Units pursuant to reg 5(4) of the Regulations ("the Permit");

(v) At the material time, the directors of the 2nd Defendant, K-Asia Holdings Sdn Bhd ("K-Asia") were one Koh Chong Poh and Koh Chong Jin (who are brothers) as well as Koh Chong Lin (who is their cousin) (collectively referred to as "the Kohs"), while the shareholders were the Kohs and the brother of Koh Chong Lin, one Koh Chong Khye ("CK Koh");

(vi) The Kohs and CK Koh were at all material times the registered proprietors and beneficial owners of the Land;

(vii) The Land was divided into two parts, with a two-fifth (2/5) portion of the Land being subdivided into various freehold lots and transferred to K-Asia for the purposes of the development of 98 Greenlane;

(viii) Those freehold lots included the subject matter of these proceedings (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Plaintiffs' Lots"), which are detailed in paras 5.4.1 to 5.4.3 of the SOC in Suit 47, "Appendix B" to the SOC in Suit 49, and paras 7.4.1 to 7.4.4 of the SOC in Suit 51 respectively, as the case may be;

(ix) By separate agreements in writing made between the respective Plaintiffs as purchasers, Kemuning Setia as developer and K- Asia as land owner, Kemuning Setia and K-Asia purported to sell the respective Plaintiffs' Lots to the respective Plaintiffs together with the respective units of residential housing thereon ("the SPAs") [see a copy of one of the Plaintiffs' SPAs at CB, pp 22¬41];

(x) These SPAs were not in accordance to and had deviated from the statutory form in Schedule G of the Regulations in various respects, as particularized and annexed as "Appendix A", to the SOC in Suits 47, 49 and 51 respectively, as the case may be;

(xi) No approval pursuant to reg 11(3) of the Regulations was obtained from the Controller of Housing for the variations madeto the Schedule G statutory form to effect the "Build and Lease" concept contained in the SPAs;

(xii) Pursuant to the SPAs, the Plaintiffs had been respectively registered as lessee(s) of the respective subdivisional portion of land appurtenant to housing accommodation comprising the Plaintiffs' Lots respectively, for a term of ninety-nine (99) years with an irrevocable option to renew for a further term of ninety- nine (99) years [see a copy of one of the Plaintiffs' Forms 15A at CB, pp 42-46];

(xiii) Pursuant to the SPAs, all the Plaintiffs, save for 1st and 4th Plaintiffs in Suit 51, received a Progress Billing dated 5 March 2015 from