Court rules in favour of housebuyers
The Star 22/04/2004 BY SIMON KHOO

SEREMBAN: Four housebuyers scored a victory over a developer in the High Court here yesterday.

Justice Azhar Ma’ah, in passing judgment in his chambers, ruled that Koperasi Kebangsaan Pemodalan Tanah Bhd was liable to pay compensation to the housebuyers as they were unable to occupy their units despite receiving the keys in 1999.

“The handing-over of vacant possession to the plaintiffs, I must say, was of no practical significance and consequence and therefore meaningless to the plaintiffs as it did not give them the right to occupy,” he said in his eight-page written judgment.

On Dec 12, 1996, the plaintiffs – Khoo Chik Sin and Khoo Su Chen, Mohd Haris Mohamad Nor and Jeslina Ujang – entered into individual agreements with the defendant to buy units in Phase 2B of Bandar Seremban Selatan for RM119,000.

Under the sale and purchase (S&P) agreement, the defendant was supposed to deliver vacant possession with the certificate of fitness for occupation (CF) within 24 months.

In a letter dated Dec 8, 1999, the defendant asked the plaintiffs to take vacant possession of their units within 14 days and they subsequently signed for their keys.

Judge Azhar said it was “plain beyond doubt” that the defendant had not submitted an application to the appropriate authority for issuance of the CF when handing over vacant possession.

“Further, it is not disputed that until today, there is no evidence of such application having been submitted by the defendant,” he said.

The issuance of CF, he stressed, was of primary importance.

“This omission by the defendant clearly is a breach of a fundamental term of the S&P agreement as without the CF, the plaintiffs are prohibited from occupying the property,” he argued.

“On the computation of quantum, clearly the formula stipulated is applicable after the expiry of 24 months from the date of the agreement,” he said, adding that for the rest of the compensation, both parties were required to put their respective arguments before the Deputy Registrar on a date to be fixed.

He also ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to costs.