Rival strata committees. Can one side take over immediately?

A strata committee dispute can leave owners unsure who controls the management office, records and official accounts. If a newly elected group says the previous group must leave, can it obtain an immediate court order before the other side is heard?

In Perbadanan Pengurusan Residensi Novo 8 v. Kong Yeng Soon & Ors [2026] MLRHU 1952, the Melaka High Court refused that request. The decision, delivered by Raja Segaran S Krishnan JC on 22 June 2026, concerned an urgent application made without notice to the defendants. It did not decide which committee was lawful.

What was the strata committee dispute about?

The management corporation brought the application through a group claiming to be its second management committee. That group sought control of the management office, keys, official email and messaging accounts, passwords and other assets. It also asked for permission to use reasonable force, including cutting locks and grilles.

However, the authority to manage the development was already disputed. An earlier extraordinary general meeting had been declared invalid by the Strata Management Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered a fresh meeting; it did not declare the defendants to be the only valid committee.

A challenge to that award was before the court, but the award had not been stayed. There were also conflicting letters from the Commissioner of Buildings and other court proceedings. Against this background, the authority to convene the later annual general meeting was contested. That meeting had elected the group seeking the handover.

Why did the court refuse an immediate handover?

In this strata committee dispute, the applicant sought a mandatory injunction: an order requiring the defendants to take positive steps. Here, those steps would transfer control of the management operation before the underlying dispute had been resolved.

Such an order requires an unusually strong and clear case. Raising a serious issue for the court to consider is not enough. The court needs a high degree of assurance that a similar order would be justified at trial.

The requested handover also came close to giving the applicant the final relief it wanted. Yet there were substantial questions about its authority. The court could not safely settle those questions using only one side’s evidence.

Disclosing the competing proceedings and documents was necessary. However, full disclosure did not turn a disputed claim into a clear right to take control. Nor did this ruling decide whether the Commissioner of Buildings had taken the correct position.

Did concerns about the lifts justify urgent intervention?

The applicant relied on reports of lift defects and safety concerns. The court took those matters seriously. Even so, the evidence did not show that an immediate transfer of the entire management operation was the only way to address them.

The court identified other possible avenues, including contractors, the Commissioner of Buildings and an application heard with notice to the other side. Safety concerns therefore did not, by themselves, establish the right to the particular takeover order sought.

The court’s decision on the strata committee dispute

The court refused the without-notice mandatory orders, including the request to use force. It directed an expedited hearing at which both sides could be heard.

This was not a final dismissal of the handover claim. It was also not a ruling that either rival committee was valid. The decision addressed whether such extensive relief should be granted immediately, before the defendants had an opportunity to respond.

What should owners and committees take from this?

An election result does not remove the need to establish that the meeting was validly convened. Where that authority is disputed, the meeting notices, resolutions, Tribunal orders and any court orders become central to the claim.

Equally, challenging a Tribunal award does not mean its effect has automatically been suspended. In this case, the absence of a stay mattered when the court assessed the request for immediate control.

The practical lesson from this strata committee dispute is to separate urgent maintenance needs from the wider fight over committee authority. Evidence of a safety problem should explain what action is needed and why the particular order sought is necessary. A demand for the office, accounts and passwords may go much further.

This article concerns the ruling on the without-notice application dated 22 June 2026. It should not be read as a determination of the ultimate rights of the competing groups.

Related strata management reading

Read our related article on whether a new management committee needs a COB recognition letter to operate the management corporation’s bank account.

Share this article