CHEAH WENG SENG 1. ) CHERAS PROPERTY SDN BHD (SEBELUM INI DIKENALI SEBAGAI NUSMETRO ARTE SDN BHD) 2. ) ASIAMEGA CAPITAL SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

CHEAH WENG SENG 1. ) CHERAS PROPERTY SDN BHD (SEBELUM INI DIKENALI SEBAGAI NUSMETRO ARTE SDN BHD) 2. ) ASIAMEGA CAPITAL SDN BHD PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS 1. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Defendants failed to prove that the delay was excused by force majeure or external causes and failed to mitigate or show steps taken; the 31.5.2023 letter did not satisfy the SPA requirement for immediate notice of delivery and therefore delivery occurred only on 4.8.2023 producing a 303‑day delay; LAD is payable calculated on the SPA sale price (RM36,791.00) and rebates are not deductible; both defendants are liable and plaintiff is entitled to costs RM5,000.00.

Citation
WA-A54-144-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintif: Cheah Weng Seng; Defendan Pertama: Cheras Property Sdn Bhd; Defendan Kedua: Asiamega Capital Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
WA-A54-144-10/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Saman Pemula / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed against both defendants; plaintiff awarded liquidated damages and costs.
Legal Topics
Late Delivery of Vacant Possession, Liquidated Damages (lad), Force Majeure, Interpretation of SPA, Vendor/developer Liability
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Real Estate Civil Remedies Late Delivery of Vacant Possession Liquidated Damages (lad) Force Majeure Interpretation of SPA +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheah Weng Seng

Plaintif

Cheras Property Sdn Bhd

Defendan Pertama

Asiamega Capital Sdn Bhd

Defendan Kedua

Procedural Posture

Saman Pemula / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants liable for late delivery of vacant possession
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of RM36,791.00
  3. 3 Whether notice dated 31.5.2023 constituted delivery of vacant possession

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to prove that the delay was excused by force majeure or external causes and failed to mitigate or show steps taken; the 31.5.2023 letter did not satisfy the SPA requirement for immediate notice of delivery and therefore delivery occurred only on 4.8.2023 producing a 303‑day delay; LAD is payable calculated on the SPA sale price (RM36,791.00) and rebates are not deductible; both defendants are liable and plaintiff is entitled to costs RM5,000.00.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against both defendants; plaintiff awarded liquidated damages and costs.

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and/or severally to pay the plaintiff RM36,791.00 as liquidated damages for late delivery of vacant possession
  • Costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the plaintiff