Are Some Lawyers Prolonging Cases for Profit? A Concern for Homebuyers in Sabah

 

Representing my son as a homeowner in Sabah, I’ve encountered troubling practices in the legal and property development sectors that deserve public discussion. My experience with a legal case involving Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd., the developer of Taman Puncak Vistana, raises questions about whether some lawyers prioritise generating legal fees over resolving disputes efficiently for their clients.

On 25.11.2022, I received a letter from Mr. Ronny Cham of Ronny Cham & Co., claiming to represent Rosemary Ahping and Della E. Sinidol of Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar (LPPB). The letter alleged that my blog posts LINK and Facebook content contained “libelous and defamatory remarks” about his clients, demanding RM2 million each in compensation for reputational damage. The letter cited articles unrelated to his clients or the Vistana Heights project, such as discussions about Twitter messages and academic exchanges, which seemed irrelevant to the case.

When I responded on 20.1.2023, seeking clarification about the alleged defamatory remarks and Mr. Cham’s authority to act for LPPB, I received a brief reply on 26.1.2023 stating that he had “no further instructions” from his clients. Despite follow-up emails, including one on 30.1.2023 and another on 16.2.2023, my questions about the relevance of the cited articles and his initial instructions went unanswered. This lack of response left me wondering whether the initial letter was a tactic to intimidate rather than a genuine effort to resolve a dispute.

Additionally, a letter dated 30.11.2022 from Ronny Cham & Co., representing Topwira Corporation, imposed excessive conditions for a meeting to address defects in the Vistana Heights project. They demanded that I cover costs for their project architect, engineer, surveyor, and M&E engineer to attend, and required me to ensure the presence of every professional body and government department I had contacted about the developer’s non-compliance. Failure to meet these conditions, they warned, would result in no meeting. This approach felt like an attempt to overwhelm and discourage me from pursuing legitimate complaints about substandard work, such as inaccessible driveways and unmaintained infrastructure, which violate the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Enactment. 

These experiences highlight a broader issue: do some lawyers in Sabah prolong disputes to inflate legal fees, knowing that West Malaysian lawyers are restricted from representing clients here? The lengthy, complex, and intimidating correspondence I received seems designed to burden homeowners financially and emotionally, potentially deterring them from seeking justice. When developers and their legal representatives use such tactics, it raises concerns about accountability in Sabah’s property sector.

Moreover, letters containing misleading information, such as claims about my son inspecting the property in 2019 when he was not in Malaysia, or incorrect statements about the defect liability period, further erode trust. Despite raising these issues with Mr. Cham in emails dated 5.4.2023 and 8.5.2023, I received no response, leaving serious allegations unaddressed.

This pattern of behavior suggests a system where legal processes may be used to protect developers rather than uphold consumer rights. Home buyers deserve clear, fair, and efficient resolution of disputes, not tactics that prolong cases and inflate costs. I call for greater oversight of legal practices in Sabah to ensure they serve justice, not profit.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Have others faced similar challenges with developers or legal representatives in Sabah?