The Kingswoodz @ Bukit Jalil
1,558 serviced-apartment units in three filed blocks of 39 / 38 / 39 storeys on Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1, by EXSIM Jalil Link Sdn Bhd. This page is built from the statutory particulars filed with KPKT — and its first job is to tell you which part of that filing you cannot trust.
XXXX — cannot be assessedLouis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
The Kingswoodz @ Bukit Jalil at a glance
Every row below is the filed value or an explicit ‘not printed’. Where the developer’s own marketing or a portal disagrees with the filing, the disagreement is named in the small print rather than quietly dropped.
- Filed scheme name
- EXSIM | The Kingswoodz ResidencesAs printed in the statutory block of the brochure filed at HIMS 30741-1. Marketed as ‘The Kingswoodz @ Bukit Jalil’.
- Licensed developer (Pemaju)
- EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD
201401028642 (1104782-X)Both PropertyGuru records name ‘EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd’ instead. That is the group brand entity, not the licensed developer, and it would not be the vendor on your SPA. - Developer licence
- 30741/04-2029/0083(N)
valid 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029A licence covers a licensed developer, not one scheme. This same licence also carries The Queenswoodz. - Advertising permit (APDL)
- NOT PRINTED — filed as the literal placeholder
XXXXIts validity period isXXXXtoo. Whether the advertising permit is current cannot be assessed, and the 2029 licence date above is not an APDL date. - Units and blocks
- 1,558 units in 3 blocks — 460 / 506 / 592Agrees exactly with the main contractor’s announced scope, ‘3 blocks of suites apartments (residential) (1558 units)’.
- Storeys
- 39 / 38 / 39 (Blocks A / B / C)The developer’s own microsite says ‘up to 46 storey’ and both PropertyGuru records repeat it. The filing governs.
- Building type
- PANGSAPURI SERVIS — serviced apartment, all residentialEach block is filed as PANGSAPURI SUITE. No office, SOHO or ‘suite office’ class is filed anywhere.
- Statutory selling price
- RM485,875 – RM881,820Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima from the legally filed advertisement particulars. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
- Completion, as filed
- June 2027Four later dates circulate on portals. The main contractor’s own 41-month term from a March-2024 award lands nearer August 2027.
- Tenure
- Pajakan 99 tahun to 4 March 2123 — about 96 years unexpiredSubject to a sekatan kepentingan: no transfer, lease or charge without consent of the Federal Territory Kuala Lumpur Land Executive Committee.
- Approving authority and plan
- Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur
DBKL.JKB.BP S3 OSC 2024 0878 (17)Chargee as filed: United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd. - Land title
- Lot 38628, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1, Mukim PetalingFrom the main contractor’s letter of award, not from the KPKT filing. The sibling Queenswoodz sits on a different title, PT 50270.
- Main contract
- RM369.9 million to Binastra, 41-month termLetter of award dated 15 March 2024, reported on a Bursa announcement.
- Green certification
- Silver provisional GreenRE, awarded 8 November 2024Provisional, not certified. Developer’s own certifications register; GreenRE’s public directory returns no listing, so this is not independently confirmed.
- Land area and density
- NOT PRINTED — and not computableKeluasan tanah is blank in the filing. The only sourced acreage, roughly 17.9, is a holding shared by four schemes across at least two titles.
- Car parking
- NOT PUBLISHED by any sourceThe filing carries no tempat letak kereta line at all. No bay count, no bays per unit, no visitor or EV provision anywhere.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised the way a buyer actually asks questions — starting with the filing, and with every contradiction kept in view rather than tidied away.
Six things about this project that no portal will tell you
Each of these came out of reading the filed document against the developer’s own marketing. None of it is adversarial for its own sake — every item changes what a buyer should ask.
The government’s own filing describes the wrong project
The brochure filed as HIMS 30741-1 has a statutory block that is correctly Kingswoodz — three blocks, 1,558 units. But its narrative pages describe ‘sebuah menara tunggal … Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang’, a single tower in a different district, and carry Branniganz’s 495 and 678 sq ft built-ups. Verified on four separate reads. Trust the statutory schedule; discard the prose. It is also why no built-up figure here comes from the filing.
The developer’s own paperwork misidentifies the developer
The microsite’s terms and conditions misspell the company as ‘EXSIM JAILL LINK’, print 1104728-X where the filing says 1104782-X, and name Lembaran Beruntung Sdn Bhd (642030-X) — the Branniganz special-purpose company — as the site owner. Three errors on one page, and the second time Branniganz copy has bled into this project’s documents.
One licence, two schemes, four projects
Licence 30741/04-2029/0083(N) is printed on both the Kingswoodz and Queenswoodz filings, and the same company holds four schemes on one roughly 17.9-acre parcel. A licence number is not a project identifier — which is precisely why the portals keep merging the two towers. Nine filed fields separate them.
Density cannot be computed, so this page computes none
Keluasan tanah is not printed. PropertyGuru asserts 3.45 acres and EdgeProp 3.44 acres for the sibling scheme — unsourced, and suspiciously near-identical for developments of very different size. The only sourced figure, 17.9 acres, is a four-scheme holding across two or more titles. Two bad numbers do not average into a good one.
All residential, all HDA — and that is worth saying out loud
Filed as PANGSAPURI SERVIS, every block as PANGSAPURI SUITE, and the contractor’s letter of award says ‘suites apartments (residential)’. No studio, no ‘Studio Office’, no SOHO, no dual key, no non-HDA office suites. Sibling EXSIM towers do mix those in, so the absence here is a finding rather than an assumption.
Two PropertyGuru records for one development
Records 20160 and 21451 both describe the same 1,558 units and three towers, but disagree with each other on completion year, opening price and price per square foot — and both name the wrong developer. Two inconsistent records from one publisher is not corroboration. One of them carries an opening price below the filed statutory minimum; that figure is withheld here.
The filed particulars — and every figure that disagrees with them
The statutory schedule is the spine. Facilities are grouped by the level the developer actually commits to in writing, which turns out to be exactly one level.
Facilities, grouped by the only level the developer actually numbers
The developer publishes no text facilities schedule — its facilities page carries two images and nothing else. Every attribution below comes from prose on its concept page, and where the level is not stated, this page says so instead of guessing.
Tower ground floors
- Grand Entrance
- Majestic Hall
- King’s Lounge B
- King’s Lounge C
- ‘Dramatic lobby lounges in each tower’ — the developer’s own words
- King’s Lounge A is named only by EdgeProp. Plausible, since B and C are published, but the developer publishes neither image nor text for it.
The eighth-level private garden
- Azure Bliss Pool
- Biopond
- Foot Chi Garden (reflexology walk)
- King’s Court
- King’s Pavilion — a ‘vine-covered gathering space’
- Jacuzzi Haven
- Lush Lawn
- Greenery Galore (community farm)
- Outdoor Vitality (outdoor workout area)
- Kid’s La La Land
Sky level
- Skyline Sip — ‘sky lounges with indoor/outdoor terraces’
- Sky Nourish Dining
- The developer never numbers the sky level. It is ‘sky’, and nothing more precise is published.
Level not published
- Burnout Studio (gymnasium)
- Aspire Hall / Aspire Lounge (reading lounge)
- Arcade Paradise (games room)
Claimed by third parties, and not supported here
- EdgeProp places some facilities at ‘Level 45’. A Level 45 facility is impossible in blocks filed at 39 / 38 / 39 storeys. Not published.
- EdgeProp counts ‘34 amenities’. That count appears in no developer source. Not published.
- EdgeProp names a ‘Fitness Trail’. It appears in no developer source at all. Not published.
- PropertyGuru lists generic categories — pools, gym, games lounge, reading room, BBQ, sky lounges, playground, parking — with no level attribution and none of the developer’s own names. A category list, not this scheme’s schedule.
- Nothing anywhere is marked ‘space only’, and no car-park bay count, bays-per-unit allocation, parking level, visitor bay or EV provision is published by any source. The filing carries no car-park line at all.
- No shared facilities deck with The Queenswoodz. Separate land titles, separate building plans, and each publishes its own ground-level and level-8 set under its own naming scheme — King’s against Queen’s. Each will have its own management corporation. Who maintains the wider 17.9-acre holding, and who pays, is NOT PUBLISHED by anyone.
Dated record, and the dates that contradict it
Four published layout types — and at least nine in the filing
One source only is usable for built-ups: the developer’s own layout page. The built-up schedule printed in the filed brochure is Branniganz Suites’, not this project’s, so it is not reproduced here. The square-metre figures below are the developer’s own, printed beside its square-foot figures, and all three convert correctly.
Type A1
The smallest published type, and published as a one-bedroom, not a studio. No room list, no orientation, no floor-to-ceiling height and no unit count is published for it.
Type B1
Note the coincidence to be careful of: 678 sq ft is also one of the built-ups printed on the filed brochure’s contaminated schedule, where it belongs to Branniganz Suites. Here it is sourced from the developer’s own Kingswoodz layout page, not from the filing.
Type C1
The largest published type. No unit count, no stack position and no orientation is published.
Type C2
C1 and C2 are published at the identical built-up with identical bedroom and bathroom counts, and the developer publishes nothing at all that distinguishes them. On the sibling Queenswoodz the equivalent pair is labelled Balkoni and Tanpa Balkoni — with and without balcony — so a balcony or a mirrored plan is the likely difference. The developer does not say so, and this page will not say it for them. Ask before you choose between them.
The built-up schedule in the filed brochure
The filed brochure’s built-up table reads JENIS A 495 sq ft, JENIS B1 678 sq ft, JENIS B2 678 sq ft. Those are Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang’s built-ups, matching that project’s own published schedule and not this one’s 474 / 678 / 904. The same filed document’s specification and electrical tables, by contrast, use Kingswoodz-consistent type codes that appear nowhere in its built-up table. The statutory particulars page is sound; these pages are not.
At least five further types exist, unpublished
The filed specification and electrical schedules name type codes A1, A1(M), A1-A, A1-A(M), A3, C1, C1(M), C2 and C2(M) — at least nine variants. The developer publishes four. So at least five further variants exist in the filing and are published nowhere public. Nobody publishes a unit count per type either.
What the portals publish instead
Both PropertyGuru records flatten the codes from A1 / B1 / C1 / C2 to A / B / C and drop C2 entirely, publishing three types where the developer publishes four. EdgeProp publishes one — Type A, 474 sq ft. Neither states which block holds which type, which is the one thing that would actually matter.
On price per square foot. Arithmetic on the filed statutory figures against the developer’s own built-ups gives roughly RM1,025 per sq ft at Block C’s statutory minimum over a 474 sq ft A1, and roughly RM975 per sq ft at the RM881,820 statutory maximum over a 904 sq ft C1. Both PropertyGuru records publish a band of about RM661–855 per sq ft, which is materially below the band the filed prices imply, so treat the portal band as unsupported. The arithmetic above is this page’s own, shown only to demonstrate the gap — it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. One PropertyGuru record also carries an opening ‘from’ price below the filed statutory minimum of RM485,875; that figure is withheld from this page, and only the existence of the discrepancy is recorded, carried by a single publisher. The figure to work from is the filed statutory band, RM485,875 – RM881,820.
Renders published on the developer’s own Kingswoodz gallery
How these images are graded, and what has been left out. The developer’s site runs WordPress but its REST API returns 404, so no CMS title could be read for any image and nothing here is ‘confirmed’ in that sense. Every subject above is graded caption-published: the caption is printed in the gallery page HTML beside the thumbnail. A bogus-filename control in the same upload directory returned 404 while every real image returned a valid response, so the reachability signal is trustworthy on this host. Kingswoodz against Queenswoodz: this gallery is served entirely from the /2024/08/ upload directory with King’s-prefixed captions, while The Queenswoodz’s is /2025/12/ with Queen’s-prefixed captions — a 16-month separation matching the two launches. Deliberately omitted: the plain ‘Facade’ renders, because they carry no caption distinguishing them and three towers of one architectural family look alike — mislabelling a tower is worse than publishing one fewer image; and the site-progress photographs, because no verified capture date could be sourced for them. These are all renders or marketing images, not photographs of a finished building: completion is filed for June 2027.
Bukit Jalil — and why every distance on this page carries a name
This is the section where most Bukit Jalil pages quietly invent numbers. The developer publishes exactly one quantified location claim for this project, and it is a driving time. Everything else below is attributed to whoever actually published it.
The map pin is placed from the street address in the main contractor’s letter of award. No source publishes survey coordinates for this scheme, and the land area is not printed in the filing.
The only quantified location claim the developer publishes
- ‘Kuala Lumpur International Airport less than 45 minutes away’ — a driving time, with no distance attached. This is the whole of the developer’s quantified location copy.
- ‘An LRT station is just steps away from your front door’ — the station is not named and no distance is given.
- ‘Just moments away from the suburb’s lively recreational park’ — the park is not named.
- ‘Tech and medical campuses’, ‘sports and event venues’, ‘offices in south Klang Valley’ — all referenced, none named, none quantified.
- The developer does not mention Pavilion Bukit Jalil anywhere on its location page, and publishes no distance to it — unusual, for a Bukit Jalil launch.
Awan Besar LRT — contested roughly two-fold, and none of it is the developer’s
- 500 m —
exsimkl.com, an IQI Realty independent marketing site - 450–650 m — EdgeProp
- 940 m, an 11-minute walk — PropertyGuru
- The spread is roughly two-fold and this page does not resolve it. All three are attributed and none is averaged. A 500 m walk is already not ‘steps away’; 940 m is a different proposition again.
- Whether the covered walkway an agent site describes for the sibling Queenswoodz also serves Kingswoodz is NOT PUBLISHED.
Pavilion Bukit Jalil — third parties only
- 850–900 m — PropertyGuru record 20160
- 8-minute walk —
exsimkl.comagent site, a time with no distance - Nothing from the developer at all.
Named by a portal, with no distance published by anybody
- SJK (C) Lai Meng · SMK Bukit Jalil · SJK (C) Yoke Nam
- International Medical University
- Aurora Place Bukit Jalil · The Food Merchant @ Bukit Jalil · Mid Valley Megamall
- KMI Taman Desa Medical Centre · Assunta Hospital · Sunway Medical Centre · University Malaya Medical Centre
- Public Bank, Hong Leong Bank, RHB and Maybank branches at Bukit Jalil / Pavilion Bukit Jalil
- EdgeProp names all of these and publishes no distance or time for any of them. Neither does this page.
Not published by any source, developer or portal
- A distance to Bukit Jalil Stadium or the National Sports Complex
- A distance to Bukit Jalil Golf & Country Resort — only an agent’s walking time for the sibling scheme
- A distance to Sri Petaling town or Technology Park Malaysia
- The nearest primary school by catchment, the nearest clinic, the nearest wet market
- Any distance from the developer to the LRT it advertises as ‘steps away’
- Highways MEX, KESAS and Bukit Jalil Highway are named by PropertyGuru with no distances.
Nothing in this section is estimated. Where no source publishes a figure, the line says so rather than filling the gap. Travel times depend on time of day and are not a representation by the developer, by IQI Realty Sdn Bhd or by LK Group Marketing.
Advertisement particulars as filed: EXSIM | The Kingswoodz Residences
Lodged with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) under licence serial 30741, filing 1. Malay field labels are reproduced as printed. A blank field is shown as NOT PRINTED rather than filled in from somewhere else.
| Filing (HIMS) | Licensed developer (Pemaju) | Developer licence | Licence validity | APDL (No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan) | APDL validity | Approving authority | Building plan (No. Pelan Rujukan) | Development type | Units / blocks | Storeys | Statutory selling price | Completion (Tarikh dijangka siap) | Tenure | Chargee (Bebanan) | Land area (Keluasan tanah) | Car park (Tempat letak kereta) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30741-1 | EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD 201401028642 (1104782-X) | 30741/04-2029/0083(N) | 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029 | NOT PRINTED filed as XXXX | NOT PRINTED filed as XXXX | Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur | DBKL.JKB.BP S3 OSC 2024 0878 (17) | PANGSAPURI SERVIS | 1,558 units 3 blocks: 460 / 506 / 592 | 39 / 38 / 39 | RM485,875 – RM881,820 | June 2027 | Pajakan 99 tahun to 04/03/2123 | United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd | NOT PRINTED | NOT PRINTED no such line in the filing |
Source: the advertisement brochure filed at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/30741/30741-1/. Only the statutory particulars page of that document is used. Its narrative and built-up pages describe a different EXSIM project and are not used anywhere on this page — see the FAQ. Land title Lot 38628, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1, Mukim Petaling, comes from the main contractor’s letter of award, not from the filing.
The price range above is the statutory Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima from the legally filed advertisement particulars, reproduced as a matter of public record. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and it does not represent current availability.
Per-block statutory price bands, exactly as filed
The filing prices each block separately, and the spread is wide:
- BLOK A — 460 units, PANGSAPURI SUITE, 39 tingkat: RM709,780.00 minimum, RM881,820.00 maximum
- BLOK B — 506 units, PANGSAPURI SUITE, 38 tingkat: RM708,055.00 minimum, RM881,820.00 maximum
- BLOK C — 592 units, PANGSAPURI SUITE, 39 tingkat: RM485,875.00 minimum, RM521,525.00 maximum
Block C is both the lowest band and much the narrowest, which is consistent with it holding a single small type — but no source publishes which layout types sit in which block. That is the single most useful unpublished fact about this scheme. Statutory figures only: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
Has the advertising permit lapsed?
The check cannot be performed. The No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan field and its validity period are both rendered as the literal placeholder XXXX in the filed brochure, and no other published source carries an APDL number for this scheme. The answer is not ‘the permit is current’ — it is that the question is unanswerable from published material.
The developer licence is a different instrument and it is current: 30741/04-2029/0083(N), valid 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029. This page does not present that date as an advertising-permit validity.
Can a foreign buyer purchase here?
The scheme is in Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer has been RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent required. The filed statutory maximum for this entire development is RM881,820 — below that floor. On the filed band alone, no unit here reaches the Kuala Lumpur threshold. No source addresses the point, and the current Wilayah Persekutuan guideline and any exemptions must be confirmed before this is relied on.
For comparison, in Selangor the threshold is RM2,000,000 in Zones 1 and 2 (strata and gated landed strata only) and RM1,000,000 in Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam. Thresholds change; confirm before committing.
Restriction in interest (sekatan kepentingan)
The filing records: ‘Tanah ini tidak boleh dipindahmilik, dipajak, dicagar atau digadai tanpa kebenaran Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.’ The land may not be transferred, leased, charged or mortgaged without the consent of the Federal Territory Kuala Lumpur Land Executive Committee.
Whether and how that consent requirement affects a purchaser’s own financing and later resale, and what lead time it adds, is not addressed by any source. Put it to the developer’s solicitors in writing before signing.
Construction progress
No verified progress percentage is published for this scheme and none is stated here. The developer maintains a site-progress page, but no dated figure could be sourced from it, and the images on it carry no verifiable capture date — which is why no site photograph appears in the gallery above. Completion is filed for June 2027; the main contract was awarded 15 March 2024 on a 41-month term, and the commencement date notified by Architect’s Instruction is not published.
What this page does not publish, and why
By standing instruction, and regardless of what is in the agency’s own project materials, this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett or after-rebate price, no promotional package, no freebie or incentive, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or return projection. The filed brochure does print a Diskaun Bumiputera field; its existence is noted and its value is withheld.
What this page does publish is the statutory Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima from the legally filed advertisement particulars, labelled as such every time, because that is public record — and it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
One further withholding, on the same principle: a PropertyGuru record carries an opening ‘from’ price that sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM485,875. Publishing a figure below the filed floor would mislead, so the figure is withheld and only the existence of the discrepancy is recorded, carried by a single publisher across two of its own records.
Also absent, because nobody publishes it: a service charge or sinking-fund rate for Kingswoodz, a bay count or bays-per-unit allocation, a density figure, a building height in metres, a lift-to-unit ratio, vacant possession terms, the defect liability period, the liquidated-damages rate, the managing agent or JMB arrangement, and any master-community charge across the four schemes on the 17.9-acre holding. For current availability, pricing and documents, speak to a licensed agent.
EXSIM Jalil Link Sdn Bhd — and the state of its own paperwork
The licensed developer, as filed, is EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD [201401028642 (1104782-X)]. Those are two formats of one company number — 201401028642 under the Companies Act 2016 and 1104782-X under the former Companies Act 1965 — and the filing prints both for the same entity. They are not two companies.
Both PropertyGuru records name the developer as ‘EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd’. That is wrong. EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd is the group’s holding and brand entity; it is not the licensed developer of this scheme and it would not be the vendor on your sale and purchase agreement. This fits a long-established pattern: EXSIM licenses each project to a separate special-purpose company, never to the holding entity. Metproperty repeats the same error. Do not carry it into your own paperwork.
The developer’s own microsite then contradicts the filing three times on a single page. Its terms and conditions misspell the company as ‘EXSIM JAILL LINK SDN BHD’; print registration number 1104728-X where the filing prints 1104782-X, a transposition of two digits; and name Lembaran Beruntung Sdn Bhd (642030-X) as the owner of the website — which is the special-purpose company behind Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang, an entirely different EXSIM scheme in an entirely different district. The terms page reads as a copy-paste from the Branniganz microsite.
That matters beyond pedantry, because it is the second time Branniganz copy has contaminated this project’s documents. The first is in the legally filed brochure itself, whose narrative pages describe Branniganz Suites as ‘sebuah menara tunggal’ — a single tower — and carry Branniganz’s built-ups, while its statutory block correctly describes this project’s three towers and 1,558 units. Treat EXSIM’s template-reused prose as unreliable across this family of projects, and verify any figure that matters against the statutory block or against the developer’s Kingswoodz-specific pages.
One licence, more than one scheme — the point that breaks the portals. Licence 30741/04-2029/0083(N), valid 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029, is printed on the Kingswoodz filing and on The Queenswoodz filing. A developer licence licenses a licensed developer; it does not identify a scheme. The same company holds four schemes on one roughly 17.9-acre Bukit Jalil holding, with a cumulative main-contract value of about RM1.8 billion across them, and HIMS carries exactly two filings under this licence to date: 30741-1 for Kingswoodz and 30741-2 for Queenswoodz. Anyone treating the licence number as a project identifier will conclude the two towers are one development. They are not.
The registered office printed on the microsite is D-35-01, Level 35, EXSIM Tower, Millerz Square @ Old Klang Road, Megan Legasi, No. 357, Jalan Kelang Lama, 58000 Kuala Lumpur. Sibling EXSIM special-purpose companies file Level 9 of the same tower, so do not assume one address across EXSIM projects; both floors are genuine. The sales gallery address in the filing is G-08, Ground Floor, Megan Legasi, No. 357, Jalan Kelang Lama, 58000 Kuala Lumpur.
The website printed in the filed advertisement does not resolve. The filing gives thekingswoodz.com.my; that domain fails to resolve, and the live microsite is kingswoodz.com, which is what the developer’s corporate site links to. This is a documentation defect, not a red flag about the project itself — the scheme is licensed, the plan is approved by DBKL, the land is charged to a named bank and the main contract sits on a Bursa announcement. It belongs here so that a buyer who cannot reach the advertised address knows which one is real.
Construction. The main contract went to Binastra on a letter of award dated 15 March 2024, RM369.9 million, for the construction and completion of main building and infrastructure works for ‘3 blocks of suites apartments (residential) (1558 units)’ on Lot 38628, over a 41-month term from a commencement date to be notified by Architect’s Instruction. The unit count in that scope agrees exactly with the filing — worth saying, because on the sibling Queenswoodz an editorial source and the filing disagree by two units.
Green certification, stated accurately. Silver provisional GreenRE certification, awarded 8 November 2024, per the developer’s own certifications register, whose slug, headline, body text and certificate filename all agree that it is provisional. The project microsite shows a bare GreenRE logo with no rating and no status qualifier. PropertyGuru states ‘GreenRE Certified: Yes’, which is wrong. GreenRE’s public directory returns no listing and its project platform reports itself unavailable, so this is not independently confirmed. There is no GBI entry.
Awards: none, and none borrowed. The Kingswoodz appears nowhere on EXSIM’s own recognitions page, which lists its awards from 2013 to 2026. The group’s Bukit Jalil awards belong to other schemes — The Rainz @ Bukit Jalil, The Rosewoodz @ Bukit Jalil and Twin Arkz @ Bukit Jalil — and its sukuk and structured-finance awards belong to financing vehicles, not to buildings. None of them attaches to this project, and none is claimed here. Equally, The Rosewoodz holds a final Silver GreenRE where this scheme holds only a provisional one; the distinction is not cosmetic.
Developer, contract and certification facts above are from the KPKT filing, the developer’s own corporate site and certifications register, and the main contractor’s Bursa-announced letter of award as reported by Business Today and The Edge. Portal claims are named as portal claims wherever they appear.
The Kingswoodz @ Bukit Jalil — frequently asked questions
Is the KPKT filing for this project reliable?
Partly — and the split matters more here than on any other page on this site. The brochure filed at hims.kpkt.gov.my/files/30741/30741-1/ contains a statutory particulars block that is unambiguously The Kingswoodz: three blocks, 1,558 units, the Kingswoodz sales-gallery contact details. That block is the spine of this page.
Its narrative pages are a different project altogether. They read “… terletak sebuah menara tunggal … dipanggil Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang” — ‘a single tower … called Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang’. Branniganz Suites is a separate EXSIM scheme in a different district, licensed to a different company, and it is one tower, not three. The same pages carry Branniganz’s built-up schedule of 495 and 678 sq ft. This was verified on four separate reads of the same PDF.
So: use the statutory schedule, discard the prose. No built-up figure anywhere on this page is taken from the filed brochure’s narrative or built-up pages.
Has the advertising permit (APDL) lapsed?
The question cannot be answered, and nobody should pretend otherwise. The APDL field in the filed brochure is rendered as the literal placeholder XXXX, as is its validity period. No other published source carries an APDL number for this scheme.
What is current is the developer licence — a different instrument. Licence 30741/04-2029/0083(N) runs 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029. That is a licence to carry on development, not a permit to advertise this scheme, and this page does not present the 2029 licence date as an APDL validity. If you need the APDL, it has to come off a physical brochure back page or the sales gallery.
The developer’s own website gives a different company number. Which is right?
The filing. And the microsite is wrong in three separate ways on one page.
kingswoodz.com/tnc prints the developer as “EXSIM JAILL LINK SDN BHD” — JAILL, not JALIL. It prints registration number 1104728-X where the filing prints 1104782-X (digits 8 and 2 transposed). And it names Lembaran Beruntung Sdn Bhd (642030-X) as the owner of the website — which is the special-purpose company for Branniganz Suites @ Bukit Bintang, not for this project.
That is the second time Branniganz copy has contaminated Kingswoodz paperwork, the first being the filed brochure itself. Take EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD, 201401028642 (1104782-X) from the filing.
Are The Kingswoodz and The Queenswoodz the same development?
No. They are two separately registered schemes under one developer licence, which is exactly why the portals merge them.
Both print the same licence number, 30741/04-2029/0083(N), because a licence covers a licensed developer, not a scheme. A licence number is not a project identifier. The same company, EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD, holds four schemes on one roughly 17.9-acre Bukit Jalil holding under that single licence; Kingswoodz is filing 30741-1 and Queenswoodz is filing 30741-2.
Nine filed fields differ between the two: scheme name, filing folder, building plan, unit count, block count, storeys, completion date, land title and statutory price band. Kingswoodz is 1,558 units in 3 blocks of 39/38/39 storeys on Lot 38628, completing June 2027. Queenswoodz is 1,004 units in 2 blocks of 43/44 storeys on PT 50270, completing October 2028 — sixteen months apart. The Queenswoodz page is here.
How many storeys is it — 39 or 46?
39 / 38 / 39 for Blocks A / B / C, as filed. The developer’s own microsite says “Standing up to 46 storey”, and both PropertyGuru records repeat ‘up to 46 levels’. EdgeProp says ‘38–39 levels’, which is closest to the filing but still drops Block B’s 38.
The filing is the legally lodged document and it governs. How ‘46’ arose is not explained anywhere, and this page does not publish it as a fact about the building.
Is any part of this development non-HDA office suites?
No — on all the evidence available, every one of the 1,558 units is a residential serviced-apartment unit. This deserves a positive statement rather than a shrug, because sibling towers by this same developer do mix in non-HDA office suites.
- The filed Jenis Pembangunan is PANGSAPURI SERVIS with no office, SOHO or ‘suite office’ class filed alongside it.
- All three blocks are filed individually as PANGSAPURI SUITE. No block is filed as offices.
- The main contractor’s letter of award describes the scope as “3 blocks of suites apartments (residential) (1558 units)” — the word ‘(residential)’ is the contractor’s own, on a Bursa-announced contract.
- The developer’s layout schedule lists only bedroom/bathroom types. There is no studio, no ‘Studio Office’, no SOHO and no dual-key type. The smallest type, A1 at 474 sq ft, is published as a one-bedroom.
Still unpublished, and worth asking: no source publishes a unit count per type, so there is no published confirmation of which SPA Schedule each type will use.
Is it GreenRE certified?
No — it holds a Silver provisional GreenRE certification, awarded 8 November 2024. Provisional and certified are not the same thing: a provisional assessment is granted on design intent, and final certification follows verification of the finished building, which cannot happen before completion.
PropertyGuru record 20160 states “GreenRE Certified: Yes”. That is wrong, and materially so for a building that will not complete before 2027. The developer’s own microsite shows a bare GreenRE logo with no rating and no ‘provisional’ qualifier, which is its own kind of misleading.
The only source for the Silver Provisional status is the developer’s own certifications register. GreenRE’s public project directory returns ‘No projects found’ to a fetch and its project platform reports itself temporarily unavailable, so this has not been independently confirmed against the registry. There is no GBI entry of any kind.
What is the density — units per acre?
It cannot be computed, so this page does not compute one. Keluasan tanah — land area — is NOT PRINTED in the filing, and no developer source publishes a land area for this scheme.
PropertyGuru asserts 3.45 acres and EdgeProp asserts 3.44 acres for the sibling Queenswoodz. Neither states a provenance, and two near-identical acreages assigned to two developments of very different size on two different land titles is a reason to distrust both, not to average them.
The one acreage with a primary source does not help: the main contractor describes a roughly 17.9-acre holding carrying four EXSIM Jalil Link schemes, spread across at least two separate titles. Kingswoodz’s own share of it is not published, so per-scheme density cannot be derived from it either.
How far is the LRT, really?
Nobody authoritative says. The developer publishes no distance to the LRT and does not even name the station — its words are ‘An LRT station is just steps away from your front door.’ Its only quantified location claim anywhere is ‘Kuala Lumpur International Airport less than 45 minutes away’, a driving time with no distance attached.
Third parties put Awan Besar LRT at figures that vary by roughly two-fold, and each is attributed here rather than averaged:
- 500 m — IQI Realty agent site
exsimkl.com - 450–650 m — EdgeProp
- 940 m, an 11-minute walk — PropertyGuru
A 500 m walk is not ‘steps away’, and a 940 m walk is a different proposition again. This page estimates nothing. The developer also never names Pavilion Bukit Jalil on its location page and publishes no distance to it; the only figures are PropertyGuru’s 850–900 m and an agent’s 8-minute walk.
Can a foreign buyer purchase a unit here?
This property sits in Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer has been RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent required.
The arithmetic is striking and you should see it: the filed statutory maximum for this entire scheme is RM881,820 — below that RM1,000,000 floor. On the filed statutory band alone, no unit in this development reaches the Kuala Lumpur foreign-purchase threshold. No source addresses this, and the threshold and its exemptions must be confirmed against the current Wilayah Persekutuan guideline before anything is relied on. For contrast, Selangor Zones 1 and 2 are RM2,000,000 (strata and gated landed strata only) and Zone 3, meaning Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam, is RM1,000,000.
When will it actually be completed?
The filed tarikh dijangka siap is June 2027, and that is the date this page carries. Five different answers are in circulation, four of them later:
- June 2027 — the filing, which governs
- around August 2027 — where the main contractor’s announced 41-month term lands, counted from the 15 March 2024 letter of award, even assuming work started the day it was signed. The filed completion date is earlier than the contract term allows; both cannot hold
- December 2028 — EdgeProp
- 2028 and 2029 — PropertyGuru’s two records, disagreeing with each other
The commencement date notified by Architect’s Instruction is not published, and without it the 41-month term cannot be converted into a real date.
Why are there two PropertyGuru listings, and can I trust their prices?
PropertyGuru carries two records for one development — 20160 and 21451 — both with 1,558 units, three towers and the same three layout types, but with different completion years, different opening prices and different price-per-square-foot bands. Both name the developer as ‘EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd’, which is wrong for this scheme. Two inconsistent records from one publisher is not corroboration.
On price: one of those records carries an opening ‘from’ figure that sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM485,875. That figure is withheld from this page. This page records only that the discrepancy exists, and that it is carried by a single publisher. The published price-per-square-foot band on both records is also materially below the band implied by the filed statutory prices against the developer’s own built-ups, so treat it as unsupported.
The figure to work from is the filed statutory band: RM485,875 – RM881,820. That is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Which block is cheapest, and which types are in it?
The filed price bands are per block, and they differ sharply:
- Block A — 460 units, 39 storeys, RM709,780 to RM881,820
- Block B — 506 units, 38 storeys, RM708,055 to RM881,820
- Block C — 592 units, 39 storeys, RM485,875 to RM521,525
Block C is both the lowest and much the narrowest band, which is consistent with Block C holding a single small type — but no source states which layout types sit in which block. That is probably the single most useful unpublished fact about this project, and it is the first thing worth asking at the gallery. These are statutory Harga Jualan Minima/Maksima figures from the filed advertisement particulars: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
What about car parking?
Nothing is published by anybody. The filed brochure carries no tempat letak kereta line at all — the field does not appear. No source publishes a bay count, a bays-per-unit allocation by type, which podium levels are parking, visitor bays, motorcycle bays or EV charging provision. The developer’s layout schedule does not state a car-park entitlement for any of its four types.
For a 1,558-unit scheme this is a material gap, and it is on the list of things to put to the developer in writing.
Is the website printed on the filed advertisement real?
No, and it is worth being precise about what that does and does not mean. The contact block of the filed brochure gives W: thekingswoodz.com.my. That domain does not resolve — a buyer following the statutory advertisement reaches nothing. The live developer microsite is at a different domain, kingswoodz.com, which is the one the developer’s own corporate site links to.
This is a documentation defect, not a red flag about the project. The scheme is licensed, the building plan is approved by DBKL, the land is charged to a named bank and the main contract is on a Bursa announcement. It belongs on this page because it is one more instance of the same pattern — filed paperwork that was not proof-read — and because a buyer who cannot reach the advertised website should know which address is the real one.
Ask for the filed document, not the brochure copy
The useful conversation about this project starts with three questions: which layout types are in Block C, what the actual APDL number and its validity are, and what the car-park entitlement is per type. None of the three is published anywhere. I will put them in writing for you.
Marketing information compiled from the KPKT filing and published sources, not an offer or a representation by the developer. Figures and availability change; verify everything material before you commit.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
Over a decade placing buyers in Johor Bahru and Kuala Lumpur property, and the person who read the filed brochure for this scheme four times to be sure the Branniganz contamination was really there. If a figure on this page is marked NOT PRINTED or NOT PUBLISHED, that is what the documents say — and it is also a list of things I will ask the developer for on your behalf, in writing.
Published 5 October 2026 · last verified 5 October 2026 against the KPKT HIMS filing 30741-1, the developer’s corporate site and project microsite, the main contractor’s Bursa-announced letter of award, and the EdgeProp and PropertyGuru records. Marketing information, not an offer.
Worth putting beside this one
Ask a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: EXSIM Group (19 developments on this site)
Where it is: Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur (KL)