An owner was barred from voting. Can the EGM stand?

An MC may need to increase maintenance charges to meet the development’s expenses. But before putting the increase to a vote at an EGM, it must ensure that eligible owners can participate and that the meeting notice properly identifies what is proposed.

In this case, the High Court invalidated an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), its resolutions and the resulting Forms 15 after finding that an owner had been wrongfully excluded from voting and that the notice was defective.

Kipmart Tampoi Sdn Bhd lwn Kip Villa Indah Management Corporation [2026] MLRHU 2577
High Court, Johor Bahru

Why was the owner excluded from the EGM?

Kipmart was the registered proprietor of five shop units. It had previously obtained a court order invalidating an earlier AGM, its resolutions and the Forms 15 issued for its units. That order also affected the MC’s asserted entitlement to charges under those resolutions.

The earlier order had not been appealed, set aside or stayed. Nevertheless, at an EGM on 28 February 2026, Kipmart was prevented from voting on the grounds that it allegedly owed maintenance charges and that its name was absent from the strata roll.

The EGM approved increased maintenance and sinking-fund rates. The MC then issued further Forms 15, which Kipmart challenged.

What did the High Court decide?

The MC did not file an affidavit in reply or appear to oppose the application despite proper service. The court nevertheless examined the documents and law; the absence of opposition did not automatically entitle Kipmart to every order requested.

The alleged arrears could not justify exclusion where that position contradicted the earlier binding order. The MC had also failed to establish a valid resolution supporting the rates relied upon against Kipmart.

The strata-roll argument failed for a separate reason. Section 72 of the Strata Management Act 2013 places the duty to prepare and maintain the roll on the MC. It could not rely on its own failure to record a registered proprietor as a reason to deny that proprietor voting rights.

The meeting notice was also defective. It referred generally to a proposed increase in maintenance fees without setting out the specific proposed resolution or the new maintenance and sinking-fund rates. The court considered this material because owners needed to understand the decision before choosing whether to attend, vote or appoint a proxy.

The court declared the EGM and its resolutions invalid, together with the Forms 15 issued pursuant to them, and ordered the strata roll to be updated.

Does this mean the owner never has to pay charges?

No. The court confined the relevant relief to demands founded on the invalid EGM and the matters affected by the earlier order. It declined broader declarations about all historical meetings and rates.

The decision does not give an owner a permanent exemption from properly imposed maintenance charges or sinking-fund contributions.

What should committees and property managers take note of?

Voting eligibility should be checked against the registered ownership, the strata roll, the lawful basis of any alleged arrears and any existing court orders. An accounting entry cannot be considered in isolation from the legal basis for the charge.

The proposed resolution should also be clear in the meeting notice. Where an increase is sought, owners should be able to identify the proposed rates and understand the financial decision before the meeting takes place.

A defective process can undermine the resolution and subsequent recovery demands. Correcting the records and notice before the meeting is therefore as important as preparing the budget itself.

Share this article