SAUJANA TRIANGLE SDN BHD v. ARMANEE TERRACE JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY & ORS [2026] 2 CLJ 340

Facts

1. The Appellant, the Developer of Armanee Terrace Condominium (“ATC”), developed the project comprising Blocks A and B. While Block A was completed in December 2005, the completion and delivery of vacant possession for Block B were delayed due to the inability to complete the necessary utility works on time.

2. The Developer alleged that the delay arose because the respondents, namely the Joint Management Body (“JMB”) of ATC and its members, who were managing Block A, obstructed the only approved access route to Block B.

3. As Block A provided the sole entrance and exit to the development, the obstruction allegedly prevented the Developer’s contractor from carrying out the utility works required for the completion of Block B.

4. Consequently, although vacant possession of Block B was initially scheduled for delivery in December 2014, the Developer was only able to deliver possession to the purchasers of Wings A, B and C between May and August 2016. The Developer claimed that it incurred liability for liquidated ascertained damages (“LAD”) arising from the delayed delivery.

5. The Developer subsequently commenced proceedings against the respondents, alleging unlawful interference with its economic interests, conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, and, against the JMB specifically, breach of its statutory duties under the Strata Management Act 2013. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claims, leading to the present appeal.

High Court

The High Court had found that Developer had failed to prove that the JMB were liable for torts of conspiracy and/or unlawful interference;

That there was no breach of statutory duty because the JMB was prioritising the interests of Tower A and its residents when Tower B was still unoccupied;

The High Court further found that the Developer’s claims were defeated by principle of res judicata as another Suit was filed by the Developer requiring access for the units purchased by the Developer;

The High Court accordingly dismissed the Developer’s claims and ordered for costs of RM 80,000 to be paid to the JMB and costs of RM 40,000.00 to its members.

Court of Appeal

The Developer had appealed against the decision of the High Court;

The Court found that the Joint Management Committee were rightfully named as they were the decision-makers on whether to grant and/or deny access to the Developer;

The Respondents had acted in concert as there had no proprietary or other basis to restrict access to Block B which is as much a part of the ATC Development as is Block A being the two buildings within one master title and one development order;

The Respondents knew the Developer was under a contractual obligation to deliver vacant possession;

The Court found the Respondents either had knowledge or were reckless as to the inevitable consequences of their obstructive acts which would mean that the essential element of intention premised on unlawful means of conspiracy had been made out;

The Court found there was no specific statutory duty imposed on the Respondents which had been breached as any statutory duties as listed would only arise upon or after the delivery of vacant possession;

There was no issue of res judicata as the subject matter of the other Suit was in relation to the restriction of access to the 97 units which the Developer had purchased while the present dispute concerned the acts od restriction of access to carry out the utility works so as to fulfil the Developer’s obligations under the SPAs with third parties resulting in different consequences;

The Developer had every right to access Block B in order to discharge its contractual obligations and since its access was obstructed by the respondents, damages ought to be awarded albeit nominal as the Developer was unable to prove the actual extent of its loss and damage.

TAKEAWAY

The ruling by the Court of Appeal makes it clear that the JMB’s statutory duties arise after the delivery of vacant possession;

The extension of the above is that the JMB is a creature of statute and does not have powers going beyond the prescribed responsibilities of management and maintenance and extending restriction of access to the land by the appellant in its capacity of the developer;

The Court of Appeal’s decision makes it abundantly clear that, whilst a Joint Management Body is vested with statutory powers under the SMA 2013, it cannot exceed or abuse those powers under the guise of acting in the best interests of the parcel owners, particularly where it is aware that the developer too is required to discharge its contractual and statutory obligations under the Sale and Purchase Agreements for another block/tower in the same Development Area.

Recommended Reading