Kua Nam Kuey v Keang Ngo Chor (JB-31NCvC-191-06/2024)

KUA NAM KUEY (No. K/P: 601206-01-5616)

TAN LAY KHIM (No. K/P: 850927-01-5410)

KEANG NGO CHOR (No. K/P: 550227-01-5036)

LOW SHIMEI (No. K/P: 900303-01-6282) ... KAVEATOR-KAVEATOR ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN PENDAHULUAN [1] Saman Pemula ini difailkan oleh Pemohon-Pemohon di bawah Aturan 71 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 bagi memohon Surat Kuasa Mentadbir ke atas harta pusaka Low Kim Cheong, seorang bukan Islam yang telah meninggal dunia tanpa wasiat pada 16 Mei 2023. [2] Permohonan ini telah ditentang oleh Kaveator-Kaveator melalui pemfailan kaveat serta beberapa afidavit balasan dan tambahan. Kesemua afidavit, hujahan bertulis, hujahan balasan dan ikatan autoriti pihak-pihak telah diteliti secara menyeluruh oleh Mahkamah ini. RINGKASAN FAKTA KES [3] Si mati, Low Kim Cheong, telah meninggal dunia pada 16 Mac 2023 pada jam 9.16 pagi akibat kemalangan jalan raya. Si mati meninggal dunia tanpa meninggalkan sebarang wasiat. Pada masa kematiannya, si mati meninggalkan seorang isteri, Tan Lay Ru, yang turut meninggal dunia pada hari yang sama pada jam 9.20 pagi, serta seorang anak lelaki bernama Low Kai Jun, yang masih di bawah umur. Harta pusaka si mati pula adalah berada dalam bidang kuasa Mahkamah ini. [4] Kematian si mati dan isterinya telah dibuktikan melalui sijil kematian rasmi yang dikeluarkan oleh Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, yang mana kesahihannya tidak dicabar oleh mana-mana pihak. ISU-ISU UNTUK PENENTUAN [5] Berdasarkan kertas kausa dan hujahan pihak-pihak, isu-isu utama yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah ini ialah: a) Sama ada pemfailan kaveat oleh Kaveator-Kaveator menjadikan prosiding ini suatu probet pertikaian (contentious probate) b) Sama ada Pemohon-Pemohon mempunyai locus standi untuk memohon Surat Kuasa Mentadbir; c) Sama ada Kaveator-Kaveator mempunyai keutamaan mutlak untuk dilantik sebagai Pentadbir; dan d) Sama ada Mahkamah wajar menggunakan budi bicara di bawah Seksyen 30 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959. KEDUDUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG Kesan Kaveat [6] Mengikut Aturan 71 kaedah 37 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, kaveat berfungsi sebagai suatu amaran kepada Mahkamah agar tiada geran dikeluarkan tanpa notis kepada pengkaveat. Pemfailan kaveat tidak dengan sendirinya menafikan bidang kuasa Mahkamah untuk mendengar dan memutuskan permohonan secara ringkas, sekiranya sesuai. [7] Dalam Re Yeow Chow Beng [1998] 3 CLJ 141, Mahkamah Tinggi menegaskan bahawa Mahkamah hendaklah menilai sama ada bantahan itu benar-benar memerlukan perbicaraan penuh atau boleh dilupuskan secara ringkas. Perkara ini dapat dilihat sebagaimana yang berikut :- It therefore follows that after the issue of a warning and the entry of appearance the matter is deemed to be contested and the court is obliged to dispose of it summarily or direct that it proceed as a contentious probate proceeding under O.72. This means that at that stage the court must be seised of all the relevant facts. In fact the warning requires the caveator to give particulars of his interest in the appearance. Compliance with this requirement as mandated by O.71 r.37(8) would ensure that sufficient material is placed before the court in order to enable it to act under O.71 r.38. However, the appearance entered by the caveator does not give the required particulars so as to enable the court to act as it should as he has merely filled in the particulars as required by Form 175. In my opinion the caveator cannot be seriously faulted for failure to give the particulars as he was merely complying with Form 175 which I have reproduced earlier. A sight at the equivalent English Form shows that our Form 175 may require to be modified. I reproduce the English Form. The appearance discloses that the caveator has in his possession a will dated later in time than that of the petitioners for probate. I was of the opinion that the matter cannot be disposed of summarily as the validity of the will of the petitioners for probate can only be determined in a probate action. Accordingly, I directed that the provisions of O.72 shall apply. The probate action is to be commenced by the petitioners as they are the persons applying for probate. Waris dan "Issue" di bawah Akta Pembahagian 1958 [8] Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam Tan Kah Fatt & Anor V. Tan Ying [2023] 2 CLJ 169 memutuskan bahawa perkataan "issue" dalam Akta Pembahagian 1958 hendaklah diberi tafsiran luas dan merangkumi keturunan melalui darah tanpa bergantung kepada status legitimasi sebagaimana yang berikut :-

The term 'issue' in relation to the deceased suggested descendants by blood lineage, not dependent on the matter of legitimacy of the descendant. The definition of 'issue' in s. 3 seeks to statutorily extend the generational lineage to beyond the immediate persons who may properly be counted as issue, to the offspring or grandchildren, even if the immediate parents of such grandchildren are themselves deceased. The intent in using the word 'issue' as opposed to 'children' in s. 6 is obviously to expand or enlarge the category of persons who may succeed or inherit, consonant with the purpose of the DA. Consistent with the intent and purpose of the DA, it could not be denied that the second appellant fell within the meaning and scope of the term issue in which case she was indeed entitled to succeed and inherit under s. 6. As an issue and descendent of her deceased father, her alleged lack of legitimacy did not deprive of her succession under s. 6. (paras 74, 75 & 78) [9] Maka, hak anak si mati Low Kai Jun sebagai benefisiari adalah jelas, nyata, dan tidak boleh diketepikan. Budi Bicara Mahkamah - Seksyen 30 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 [10] Seksyen 30 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 dengan jelas memperuntukkan bahawa Mahkamah mempunyai budi bicara luas untuk melantik individu yang difikirkan sesuai sebagai Pentadbir dengan mengambil kira kepentingan semua pihak yang berkepentingan dalam harta pusaka. [11] Prinsip ini telah ditegaskan Dalam Harta Pesaka Ngau Ken Lock (Deceased) V. Ngau Voon Kiat [2002] CLJU 144 di mana Mahkamah menekankan bahawa kepercayaan, kesesuaian dan kebajikan benefisiari adalah pertimbangan utama. Perkara ini dapat dilihat sebagaimana yang berikut :- Applying the above principles and law to the present applications before this court, I have to keep in view the requirement under s.16 of the Act, ie, who is the person or persons the court deems fittest to administer the estate? The petitioner may be deemed 'fit' to administer. The applicant also may be deemed 'fit' to do the same. Both of them may also be deemed 'fit' to jointly administer the estate as co-administers. The task of this court is to decide and determine, based on the above principles, as well as after having regard to the rights and interests of all the other beneficiaries as stipulated under s. 30 of the Act, who the 'fittest' to administer the said estate is. It is also an established principle that the court will normally recognize the wishes of the majority of the beneficiaries. Section 30 of the Act clearly envisages that 'in granting administration, the court shall have regard to all persons interested in the estate of the deceased person'. This principle is both correct and sound. It seeks to achieve maximum harmony among competing interests. In the present case, the applicant's share in the estate (as provided under the said will) is 1/6. The other beneficiaries (including the petitioner) are entitled to 5/6 shares. Of course the applicant's interest is a minority interest. The other beneficiaries (except the applicant) either personally or through administrators / representatives have sworn their respective affidavits that they have confidence in the petitioner to administer the said estate and supported the petitioner's petition (vide encl 8), and opposed the applicant's application (vide encl 14). It is a reality that a 'leader' or 'representative' who does not enjoy the trust, support and confidence of the people whom he leads or represents would be a disaster, however elevated his academic or job acclaim. This is also true for an administrator as in the present case. In the circumstances, the court is satisfied that the applicant is not the 'fittest' person to be appointed the sole administrator of the estate of the late Dato' Ngau Ken Lock. He is also not fit to be appointed as co-administrator of the said estate. To appoint him as the sole administrator may not be to the advantage of all the beneficiaries. It may lead to disaster and colossal blunder. To appoint him as co-administrator together with the petitioner, lander the present background, may also lead to the same result, ie, disaster and colossal blunder. It is just like allowing two political parties of equal strength but of totally different and conflicting ideologies, to run a single government to administer a country. We all know where it will lead to. Only a miracle can save their destinations. The estate may not be administered expeditiously and economically. [12] Oleh itu, jelas bahawa dalam melaksanakan budi bicaranya, Mahkamah hendaklah mengutamakan kesesuaian calon pentadbir serta kepentingan, kebajikan dan kepercayaan benefisiari keseluruhannya HUJAHAN PIHAK-PIHAK DAN PENEMUAN MAHKAMAH [13] Kaveator-Kaveator berhujah bahawa sebagai ibu dan adik si mati, mereka mempunyai keutamaan untuk dilantik. Walau bagaimanapun, Mahkamah mendapati hujahan ini gagal mempertimbangkan kepentingan sebenar benefisiari utama, iaitu kanak-kanak di bawah umur. [14] Pemohon-Pemohon pula telah membuktikan bahawa mereka: a) merupakan Pentadbir sah kepada harta pusaka ibu kepada kanakkanak tersebut; b) merupakan penjaga yang sah kepada kanak-kanak itu melalui perintah Mahkamah; dan c) berada pada kedudukan praktikal dan undang-undang yang terbaik untuk mentadbir harta pusaka secara berhemat. [15] Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Kaveator-Kaveator gagal menunjukkan bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon tidak sesuai ataupun wujud konflik kepentingan yang menjejaskan kebajikan benefisiari. PENEMUAN DAN ALASAN KEPUTUSAN [16] Setelah mempertimbangkan keseluruhan bukti, undang-undang dan kebajikan benefisiari, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa: a) bantahan Kaveator-Kaveator tidak menimbulkan isu probet pertikaian sebenar; b) pemfailan kaveat semata-mata tidak mencukupi untuk menolak permohonan; c) Pemohon-Pemohon adalah individu yang paling sesuai; dan d) adalah adil dan wajar Mahkamah menggunakan budi bicara di bawah Seksyen 30 Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959. PERINTAH [17] Oleh yang demikian, Mahkamah ini memerintahkan bahawa: a) Permohonan Pemohon-Pemohon adalah DIBENARKAN; b) Surat Kuasa Mentadbir hendaklah dikeluarkan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon; c) Kaveat yang difailkan oleh Kaveator-Kaveator diketepikan; dan d) Kos berjumlah RM3,000.00 diawardkan kepada Pemohon-Pemohon, dibayar oleh Kaveator-Kaveator secara bersama dan berasingan. BERTARIKH PADA 6 MEI 2026 YA DATUK ZAMRI BIN BAKAR PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI (1) MUAR Peguam bagi pihak Pemohon-Pemohon TETUAN W.L. ONG & ASSOCIATES Peguam bagi pihak Kaveator-Kaveator TETUAN R. RAJA GOPAL & CO.