Letter to editor
IT HAS been more than three years since the last annual general meeting (AGM) was held for Jaya One.
In December 2021, the Jaya One Management Corporation filed an injunction to the High Court to prevent the annual general meeting (AGM) and extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of Jaya One to be held amid a legal suit filed by several owners and the Jaya One Management Corporation against Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd, Jaya One Management Sdn Bhd and others.
On Jan 31 last year, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s injunction. Based on the grounds of judgement, the appellate court had made several rulings that the injunction application filed by Jaya One Management Corporation lacks basis under the law and that the learned High Court Judge had erred in allowing the injunction.
Since the defeat at the Court of Appeal, the Jaya One Management Corporation had then attempted to appeal to Federal Court by applying for leave (permission).
Being the apex court, the Federal Court will first hear from the parties the reasons for appeal so as to determine whether the appeal fulfills the legal threshold to grant leave (permission) to appeal before making consideration whether to allow the appeal to be heard and decided by the apex court.
On Dec 12 last year, the Federal Court had denied the Jaya One Management Corporation’s application for leave on the same grounds of the Court of Appeal which also coincided with the same grounds previously stated by the Commissioner of Building (MBPJ) whereby they had conclusively decided that the Jaya One Management Corporation is not entitled under the law to apply to court to injunct themselves from holding the AGM and EGM of Jaya One.
That such unlawful conducts by the Jaya One Management Corporation had in essence deprived all the owners the rights to have their AGM or EGM held in strict compliance with the Strata Management Act 2013 for more than 38 months since the last AGM was held in September 2020 as well as their rights to be involved in any decision-making process over issues concerning Jaya One Development.
The Federal Court had also made some remarks which raised concerns about the Jaya One Management Corporation’s legal costs (funded by the proprietors) and emphasised that not all owners are even aware of this injunction and legal expenditures arising from the Jaya One Management Corporation’s decision to injunct itself from holding an AGM and EGM.
The Federal Court further noted that if the proprietors were to know that the legal costs spent by the Jaya One Management Corporation come from their own pockets, the proprietors may not even support such actions taken by the Jaya One Management Corporation.
Since the Federal Court’s decision on Dec 12 last year, there has not been any updates or any indications with regard to when the committee members of the Jaya One Management Corporation wish to convene the AGM.
The case of Jaya One is not uncommon among strata management properties but it is unique because this is the first time such dispute has been brought to the Federal Court for determination. The legal saga that has ensued in Jaya One ought to present some lessons that all can learn from.
Can and should such strata management-related issues be first ventilated and exhausted at COB and the Strata Management Tribunal which already provides effective channels for dispute resolution without resorting to extended high legal fees arising from a long and massive drawn-out civil court proceedings as witnessed in this case?
Indeed, can and should the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) of Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) who is the authority responsible for stratified buildings to exercise its power to intervene to restore the owners’ rights to an AGM in accordance with the law? – Feb 22, 2024
Jaya One Management Sdn Bhd (JOMSB)
Petaling Jaya
The views expressed are solely of JOMSB and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
