High Court Orders DBKL and Developer to Pay Retired Couple RM1.3 Million for Damaged Home

Key figures

• ●Kuala Lumpur High Court awarded RM1,279,000 in compensation plus RM100,000 in costs
• ●Judgment delivered on 24 April by High Court judge Gan Techiong
• ●Compensation: RM300,000 general damages, RM160,000 rent, RM819,000 repair and relocation costs
• ●Developer Fame Modulation Sdn Bhd is in liquidation; DBKL ordered to pay jointly
• ●Couple and their four children rented a home for about 10 years after their Cheras house was damaged

News summary

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ordered Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and the developer of a 29-storey commercial project, Monteno Sovo Suites, to pay a retired couple more than RM1.3 million in compensation and costs. The ruling follows damage to the couple's home in Cheras caused by piling and excavation works at the adjacent project, according to a Nanyang Property report citing Free Malaysia Today.

The plaintiffs are retired police officer Adnan Azizong and retired teacher Azizah Ahmad. During construction, their home suffered cracks and structural damage, forcing the couple and their four children to move out and rent a house for about 10 years.

In a judgment dated 24 April, High Court judge Gan Techiong ordered the developer, Fame Modulation Sdn Bhd, which is now in liquidation, to pay RM1,279,000 in compensation jointly with DBKL through its liquidator, together with RM100,000 in costs. The compensation comprises RM300,000 in general damages, RM160,000 for rent, and RM819,000 for repair and relocation expenses.

The judge noted that the developer had promised to repair the home but failed to do so, leaving the couple to borrow from Bank Rakyat to cover the repair costs. For a couple in their 60s living on government pensions, the judge said carrying a large housing repair loan was a heavy burden.

The judgment stated that DBKL had at one point halted the works but later allowed construction to resume without adequate safety measures despite knowing the risks involved. The court dismissed DBKL's arguments that the claim was time-barred and should have been brought by way of judicial review, and also rejected its defence under Section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974, finding that the city hall's negligence contributed to the delay in repairing the home.

The judge held that when the wrongful acts of different defendants are causally linked and the resulting damage cannot be apportioned, the parties may be held jointly and severally liable. The court did not, however, grant the couple's application for aggravated and punitive damages, on the basis that compensation should not exceed the actual loss suffered.