AGM approved the charges. Can the Tribunal overturn them?
Can the Strata Management Tribunal nullify an AGM resolution where the financial consequences exceed RM250,000?
A resolution may have the support of a majority at an AGM. Does that prevent a parcel owner from challenging it before the Strata Management Tribunal, particularly where reversing it would have substantial financial consequences?
In Badan Pengurusan Bersama I Soho I City v Tribunal Pengurusan Strata & Anor [2026] MLRHU 2378, the High Court considered a challenge to an award invalidating a JMB’s resolution on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions.
Background
I-Soho I-City is a commercial strata development comprising several components. Before its fourth AGM, maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions were imposed at a single rate of RM2.91 per share unit.
At the AGM on 10 July 2023, a majority approved revised, different rates for the various components. A parcel owner challenged the resolution before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal invalidated the resolution and ordered the JMB to revert to the previous single rate. The JMB applied for judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction. It contended that recalculation would produce refunds of approximately RM472,338.96 per month, above the Tribunal’s RM250,000 monetary limit.
What did the court decide?
The High Court dismissed the JMB’s application on 22 July 2026.
Under section 105 and Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the Strata Management Act 2013, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim to nullify a resolution passed at a general meeting.
The court distinguished the relief sought from its financial consequences. The owner’s claim was not a monetary claim. The alleged refunds were incidental to the principal order nullifying the resolution. The RM250,000 monetary limit was therefore not triggered in this case.
The court also held that reverting to the previous rate was consequential upon invalidating the resolution. It did not amount to the Tribunal independently fixing a new rate of charges.
On the validity of the different rates, the High Court applied Menara Rajawali and held that the JMB’s resolution was contrary to law. It rejected the suggestion that approval at a general meeting could validate charges outside the JMB’s statutory powers.
What should JMBs, MCs and owners take note of?
First, a majority vote does not place an AGM resolution beyond challenge. The management body’s statutory powers and the substance of the resolution remain important.
Second, substantial financial consequences do not automatically put a dispute outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This decision concerned a claim to nullify a resolution. It should not be read as permission to pursue a monetary award exceeding the statutory limit merely by describing it differently.
Third, the position on different rates requires careful distinction. Our view remains that different rates have a legitimate place in strata management, and Menara Rajawali must be read within its own facts, statutory framework and issues decided. That position does not alter the fact that the High Court applied it against this JMB.
A JMB should not be equated with an MC. The judgment itself recognised the distinction drawn in Menara Rajawali concerning the express statutory power given to an MC under section 60(3)(b), subject to its requirements. This case should therefore not be presented as a blanket prohibition on different rates throughout strata management.
The practical question is not simply whether owners voted for different rates. It is which management body imposed them, what statutory power supports them, and whether the proposed charging structure satisfies the applicable requirements.
