The court affirmed the validity of the AGM held on 11.9.2011 despite claims of disorder, while the subsequent meeting on 15.10.2011 was invalidated due to procedural deficiencies, establishing principles regarding meeting conduct under relevant statutes.

[1]The 1st plaintiff, Muafakat Kekal Sdn Bhd, is the original developer and proprietor of a housing project known as Palm Spring Condominium @ Damansara. The 2nd plaintiff, Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara, is a body which was established under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318) on 8.1.2008. The 1st defendant, Pesuruhjaya Bangunan, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya, is an officer appointed under section 3 Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (Act 663)2008 under section 4Act 663

[2]The plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is for various declaratory reliefs and damages. In essence, the plaintiffs contend that the general meeting that was held by them on 15.10.2011 was valid whereas that which was held on 11.9.2011 was invalid. The plaintiffs further seek a declaration that the establishment of the 2nd defendant was invalid and had contravened section 4(1)(a) Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007

[3]In brief, the 2nd defendant contends that the plaintiffs are prohibited from raising the issue as to the validity of the 2nd defendant as the issue is res judicata (issue estoppel). It contends that the meeting held on 11.9.2011 was valid and that held on 15.10.2011 was invalid and should not be recognised. The 2nd defendant has counterclaimed for various declaratory orders as well as general damages, and aggravated damages of RM 500,000.00.

The 2nd defendant's Application for Joinder

[4]After the Court had fixed 20 & 21.2.2012 for the hearing of this Suit, the 2nd defendant had filed a Summons in Chambers to join 11 other persons as defendants. The 2nd defendant also sought a stay of all proceedings until the disposal of the application for joinder. The reasons for the application were that the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiffs would bind the proposed defendants and that their joinder were necessary to enable all issues to be placed before and be determined by the Court.

[5]On 9.1.2012, the Court had dismissed the application with no order as to costs. The Court was of the view that the joinder of the office bearers and other committee members of the JMB as fellow defendants was not necessary and their non-joinder would not in any way prejudice the 2nd defendant's case. On the contrary, the joinder of such a large number of co-defendants would only result in further delays occasioned by the necessity of filing additional pleadings at a time when the Court was ready to proceed with the hearing. The Court was of the considered opinion that in the event that declaratory orders are made against the JMB, they were fully capable of being carried out by the relevant office bearers and committee members of the JMB.

The Plaintiffs' Case

[6] The plaintiffs called a total of eight witnesses in support of their case. Dato' Haji Abdul Hanif bin Abdullah (PW 1), the Managing Director of the 1st plaintiff, testified that the 2nd plaintiff is the Management Corporation for Palm Spring Condominium @ Damansara (hereinafter referred to as "Palm Spring Condo") established on 8.1.2008 (page 8 of Bundle A).

[7]The 1st plaintiff is the original proprietor of Palm Spring Condo and, as such, it was its statutory obligation to convene the 1st AGM of the 2nd plaintiff (her