1. Application for injunction to compel first defendant to convene First Annual General Meeting under Strata Management Act 2013. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 5897
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN WANGSA 118 & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SERI MERAGA PROPERTIES SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: WA-22NCvC-63-02/2026]
The Strata Management Act 2013 is social legislation requiring liberal interpretation to protect community interests. Courts may grant an injunction to compel a statutory AGM when its absence prevents parcel owners from exercising legal rights and managing essential financial matters like service charges.
Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Sections 46(2) and 57(1) - Injunction to compel the convening of the first Annual General Meeting (AGM) - Mandatory statutory duty of the management body to hold AGM - Right of parcel owners to consider accounts, elect committee members, and raise concerns (Paras 9, 16).
(B) Injunction - Principles for granting - Application must satisfy three criteria: there are bona fide serious issues to be tried, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, and damages are not an adequate remedy (Para 8).
(C) Strata Management Act 2013 - Nature as social legislation - Provisions safeguarding community interests ought to receive a liberal interpretation rather than a restricted or rigid one, favouring the interest of the community over the interest of the individual (Paras 23-26).
Facts of the case:
The applicants, representing parcel owners, sought an injunction to compel the first defendant to sign a statutory form to convene the first AGM. The applicants asserted that the required percentage for strata title transfer had been achieved and that the lack of an AGM caused financial management difficulties, specifically the inability to adjust service charges. The first defendant opposed the application, arguing that the applicants lacked locus standi due to the alleged unlawful constitution of their management body.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the first AGM is essential for protecting the rights of parcel owners. The failure to hold the meeting prevented the decision on service charges, which could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the applicants. The court determined that the governing Act is social legislation and must be interpreted to facilitate the affairs of the community.
Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction to compel the convening of the first AGM and whether the first defendant's objections regarding locus standi and pending audits were sufficient to deny the remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to an AGM is a statutory right essential for the governance of strata schemes. Since the Strata Management Act 2013 is social legislation, it should be interpreted liberally to ensure the community's interests are protected. Where the failure to convene a statutory meeting prevents the resolution of critical financial matters, the court may exercise its discretion to grant an injunction.
Result: Application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- real property
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claimed statutory compliance and necessity for meeting; defendants raised locus standi and validity of management body. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. First defendant's failure to hold AGM prejudiced parcel owners' rights; balance of convenience favoured plaintiffs; statutory duty to hold AGM. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Court will not condone a party's failure to perform a statutory duty; injunctive relief may compel compliance where rights are prejudiced. (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
5. Plaintiffs' application granted; first defendant ordered to sign statutory form or second plaintiff authorized to do so; costs awarded. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. What are the criteria for granting an injunction in a strata management dispute?
The court applies the three criteria from Keet Gerald: bona fide serious issues to be tried, balance of convenience, and inadequacy of damages. (Para 8 )
7. Can a court compel a management corporation to hold an Annual General Meeting?
Yes, where the corporation fails its statutory duty under the Strata Management Act 2013, the court may order it to convene the AGM. (Para 9 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 )
8. Does the existence of a management corporation without a first AGM render the corporation invalid?
No, the failure to hold an AGM does not affect the legality of the management corporation; the corporation remains validly constituted. (Para 14 )
9. What is the approach to interpreting the Strata Management Act 2013?
The Act is social legislation that must receive a liberal interpretation to protect the interests of the community of parcel owners. (Para 23 , 24 )
10. When may a court authorize an alternative person to sign a statutory form for convening a meeting?
When the management corporation fails to sign the statutory form, the court may empower a plaintiff to sign to ensure the meeting is held. (Para 25 )
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
[1] Ini adalah permohonan untuk satu perintah injunksi bagi perintah untuk Defendan Pertama menandatangani Borang Berkanun 14 bagi mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Pertama. Plaintif juga memohon jika Defendan Pertama gagal berbuat demikian, Plaintif Kedua diberi kuasa untuk menandatangani Borang Berkanun 14 tersebut bagi pihak Defendan Pertama. Plaintif juga memohon agar Defendan Pertama tidak menukar tarikh atau tempat Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan Pertama tersebut. Plaintif juga memohon agar Defendan Pertama menyerahkan sijil penubuhan bagi penubuhan Perbadanan Pengurusan Wangsa 118 kepada Plaintif Pertama.
[2] Alasan permohonan ini adalah disebabkan Plaintif telah mematuhi seksyen 57(1) dan seksyen 46(2) Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 dengan mencapai peratusan yang membolehkan pemindahan hakmilik strata oleh pemilik-pemilik petak. Pada masa yang sama, Pejabat Tanah dan Galian setakat 17.07.2025 telah mengesahkan jumlah melangkaui kepada 65.4% telah dicapai. Di samping itu kesukaran pengurusan kewangan untuk mengenakan kadar bayaran yang berbeza di kalangan para pemilik tidak dapat dilaksanakan. Ini disebabkan tiadanya Mesyuarat Agung Pertama dipanggil.
[3] Permohonan ini disokong oleh afidavit Mohd Al-lman bin Zakaria. Pada para 32 afidavitnya dinyatakan bahawa terdapat kes bona fide yang serius untuk dibicarakan. Ini adalah disebabkan Defendan Pertama gagal mengadakan Mesyuarat Agung Pertama setelah mencapai ambang peratusan yang diperlukan seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 57(1) Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 .
[4] Defendan-Defendan membantah permohonan ini melalui afidavit jawapan Zafrullah bin Md Noor menyatakan Plaintif-Plaintif tidak berhak terhadap kepada remedi yang dipohon disebabkan gagal menunjukkan mekanisma undang-undang yang sewajarnya di bawah Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 .
[5] Defendan-Defendan mengatakan perlaksanaan disebabkan isu berkenaan locus standi Plaintif-Plaintif untuk mengemukakan tindakan ini belum lagi diputuskan maka ia tidak membolehkan injunksi yang dipohon oleh Plaintif-Plaintif dibenarkan.
Analisa
[6] Injunksi adalah budi bicara Mahkamah untuk membenarkannya. la tidak akan diberikan jika melibatkan isu yang remeh, (lihat Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co v. Broadbent [1859] 7 H.L. Cas. 600, 11 E.R. 239; Glynn v. Keele Unlikely [1971] 1 WLR 487).
[7] Tinjauan kepada undang-undang di United Kingdom menunjukkan bahawa injunksi adalah merupakan sesuatu yang bersifat ekuiti. Ini dinyatakan dalam buku The Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunction, Rectification and Equitable Damages oleh I.C.E. Spry, Sweet & Maxwell, 2001 halaman 322, seperti berikut:
An injunction is an order, historically of an equitable nature, restraining the person to whom it is directed from performing a specified act, or, in certain exceptional cases which will be considered hereafter, requiring him to perform a specified act.
[8] Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bagi sesuatu permohonan injunksi. Prinsip di dalam kes Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 MLJ 193 yang ditegaskan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Tetap Tiara Sdn. Bhd. v. Pengurusan Perbadanan Jaya One & Ors [2023] CLJU 2648; [2024] 2 MLJ 853 adalah seperti berikut:
[23] It is trite law that in an injunction application, the first defendant has to satisfy and fulfil 3 criteria as specified in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor bin Abdullah & Ors [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 MLJ 193 that:
(a) there are bona fide serious issues to be tried;
(b) balance of convenience is in favour of the first defendant; and
(c) damages is not an adequate remedy.
Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengatakan bahawa budi bicara untuk membenarkan injunksi bergantung adalah dalam keadaan yang luar biasa.
[9] Dalam kes Tetap Tiara (supra), Defendan Pertama kes itu iaitu Perbadanan Pengurusan memohon bagi menghalang daripada menjalankan Mesyuarat Agung Pertama. Mahkamah Rayuan menukilkan:
[47] It is our respect
