Ahmad Rubil bin Ahmad & Ors v Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd & Anor

Appellant(s):

• Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad
• Mazawati Osman
• Low Koe Sei
• Koh Mei Leng
• Abdul Malek Bin Ahmad Zaini
• Haironi Binti Raffaiee
• Chong Sun Chan
• Tong Yap Lan
• Syarifah Aliza Binti Syed Azauddin
• Juraimi Azahar Bin Taharim
• Anwar Ali Bin Vali Mohamed

Respondent(s):

• Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd
• CK East Construction Sdn Bhd

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The appellants (plaintiffs in the High Court) are residents whose houses are adjacent to land developed by the first respondent (developer) and second respondent (main contractor).
• The respondents commenced development works, including substantial earthwork and the erection of a Reinforced Concrete Wall (RC Wall), on their adjacent land.
• The appellants claimed that these works covered a natural waterway/detention pond, leading to cracks and soil settlement in their houses and multiple flooding incidents.

• Whether the respondents breached their common law duty of care in negligence, causing damage to the appellants' properties due to their development works.
• Whether the respondents' development works constituted a nuisance by causing unreasonable and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the appellants' land.
• Whether the appellants had sufficiently proven a causal link between the respondents' actions (specifically the backfilling and RC Wall construction) and the alleged damages.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellants failed to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
• The Court found no appealable error in the High Court's finding that there was no compelling and definitive evidence to support the contention that the respondents' RC Wall blocked a waterway or was the definitive cause of the deluge.
• The Court agreed that the appellants were bound by their pleaded case for nuisance, which focused on backfilling and RC Wall construction, and found insufficient evidence to prove that these specific actions caused the alleged settlement and damage.