Habibul 'Ajmi Bin Mangaar v Muhammad Munir Bin Manggar (MA-24NCvC-28-01/2024)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR BIN MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 911214-01-5775)

KAMISAH BINTI ABAS (NRIC No.: 671202-04-5264)

MUHAMMAD MANNAN BIN MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 930702-04-5539)

SITI MUNIRAH BINTI MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 940725-04-5098)

MUHAMMAD OMAR FAROUK BIN MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 951111-04-5433)

MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 980715-04-5103)

MUHAMMAD FU'AD BIN MANGGAR (NRIC No.: 021011-04-0511) 1 11/03/2026 11:21:01 MA-24NCvC-28-01/2024 Kand. 62 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The parties herein are the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Manggar bin Haniff. The Deceased passed away intestate on 07.08.2008. During his lifetime, the Deceased had two wives, namely:- i. Hasbuna binti Mohd Zainuddin, with whom, they shared 6 children; and ii. Kamisah binti Abas, also had 6 children.

The Deceased's eldest son from his first wife, Habibul 'Ajmi bin Manggar is the Applicant in Suit MA-24NVCV-28-01/2-024. The 7 interveners are the Deceased's second wife and all 6 children from that marriage.

The Applicant was granted the Letters of Administration for the Deceased's late estate by the Malacca High Court vide Order dated 08.05.2019 which was extracted on 11.09.2009. Hereinafter, the Applicant shall also be referred to as the Administrator. 2 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

These grounds are in respect of the Court's decision of 19.12.2025 in making the following orders where: - i. ji The Applicant is entitled and allowed to claim administration fees in the form of the administrator's commission amounting to 3% of the entire value of the estate of Manggar bin Haniff pursuant to S.43 of the Probate and Administration Act (PAA); and The Applicant is entitled and allowed to claim all costs and expense in the administration and management of the properties of the Estate which had been expanded, borne and will be incurred by the Applicant from the assets of the Estate of Manggar bin Haniff and/or to the beneficiaries of Manggar bin Haniff, subject always to a disclosure of any and all details in relation thereto at least one (1) month before such cost and expense is reimbursed from the estate of Manggar bin Haniff.

BRIEF FACTS The brief facts of the case are fairly simple, being: i. There were differences of opinion between the two families on the distribution of the assets, made up of various pieces of immovable properties, of the Deceased (i.e 1st wife's 3 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA family led by Habibul and the 2nd wife's family led by Kamisah); ii. The Deceased in his lifetime married 2 wives, each of whom he had six children with, being his legal heirs and beneficiaries; iii. Upon his demise, the eldest son from the Deceased's 1st wife, Habibul, became the administrator of his estate. iv. Whilst it cannot be said that the Deceased was a pauper upon his demise, the assets left behind, though considerable and ample for all his beneficiaries, could neither be resolved expeditiously nor amicably. This was unfortunate as the estate consists of a considerable amount of immovable property, i.e 28 properties, of which 3 had already been sold.

Not surprisingly, allegations were traded between the two conflicting parties. Yet, despite the acrimonious relationship, the parties were comfortable with the position of the Plaintiff (Habibul) as the administrator, or so it seems, evidenced by the absence of any formal challenge. There was no attempt on record to challenge or remove the Administrator. Only allegations of mismanagement, delay and maladministration of the estate were made, which remains to be unproven. 4 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

This Court had decided on the main issues involving both cases involving the beneficiaries i.e MA-24NCVC-28-01/2024 and MА- 24NCVC-495-12/2023. Briefly, these cases prayed for the following reliefs: - i. il. MA-24NCVC-28-01/2024 commenced by the Administrator for orders, inter alia, that the Administrator be allowed to distribute the assets of the estate of the Deceased according to the Faraid Order dated 13.08.2020 for certain assets and the remainder by way of muafakat (consent) between the beneficiaries; MA-24NCVC-495-12/2023: commenced by the beneficiaries of the 2nd wife's family against the beneficiaries of 1st wife's family for orders, inter alia, that the Administrator be instructed to distribute the assets of the estate of the Deceased according to the manner as they prescribed.

The Court, upon a perusal of all cause papers and submissions of the parties, delivered its main decision in respect of both cases on 19.12.2025.

There has been no appeal in respect of the abovesaid main decision. 5 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

However, the interveners in Suit MA-24NCVC-28-01/2024 and the plaintiffs in MA-24NCVC-495-12/2023 being the members and beneficiaries of the 2nd wife's family led by Kamisah were unsatisfied with the ancillary orders in relation to the commission of the Administrator and the costs and expenses for the administration of the estate.

I must reiterate that at no point in time, in almost 16 years, was there ever an application for the removal or replacement or substitution of the Administrator by the 2nd wife's family. Yet, when it came to compensate the Administrator for his efforts thus far, there was immediate dissatisfaction.

With this backdrop, the questions that needed to be answered here are: - i. Is the Administrator entitled to the 3% commission pursuant to Section 43 of the PAA? ii. Whether the Administrator is entitled to all costs incurred and to be incurred in the administration of the estate under Section 44 of the PAA? 6 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

DECISION OF THE COURT This court finds that based on the circumstances of this case, both questions must be answered in the affirmative with the former being fixed at 3% as opposed to the maximum 5% as provided under s 43 of the PAА.

I have taken into consideration the representation given by the Administrator in the Shariah Court that he initially had no intention of seeking any remuneration in the reduction to 3%. This, and coupled with the fact that due regard ought to be given to the time taken to reach this point in the administration of the estate. 16 years is indeed a long time under any given circumstances.

Generally, being an administrator is a thankless job. More often than not, the administrator will be faced with largely unwarranted, unsubstantiated or unjustified allegations in relation to his actions (inactions or omissions included), including condemnation, being questioned and criticized, either on the basis of lack of intelligence or lack of urgency with a massive serving or dose of alleged biasness. And more often than not, most remain to be unproven allegations. 7 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

The allegations made against the Administrator, inter alia, were as follows: - i. On the disagreement over the selection of certain assets to be transferred to the respective families collectively, the main bone of discontent was the value attached to the respective assets, hence leading to a difference in the total value to be divided between the two parties, with the 1st wife's family being given preferential treatment as to the selection of assets; ii. That the Administrator, despite having been granted the letter of administration for a period of almost 13 years then (now almost 16 years) has not fulfilled his duties in making the necessary transfers, which has severely been financially prejudicial to the beneficiaries particularly to the 2nd wife's family; iii. The Administrator has not provided full details of all dealings in relation to the said immovable properties to all the beneficiaries; iv. The Administrator has failed to provide current and detailed accounts in relation to the administration which ought to be made available for inspection at all times until all assets are properly distributed; 8 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

v. Therefore, the Administrator should not be entitled whatever commission as provided under the PAA. to Suffice to state that all the abovesaid allegations were not substantiated with any details, evidence or figures save and except for the allegation that the said Administrator in the Syariah Court proceedings for the Faraid Order had purportedly declared that he would not be seeking any compensation for any costs and expense in the administration of the said estate.

In reply, the Administrator stated the following in his affidavit (Enclosure 20):- 9 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

Saya juga ingin menyatakan bahawa saya sebagai pentadbir dengan ini membantah permohonan Perintah-perintah seperti yang dipohon di dalam Saman Pemula No. MA-24NCVC-495-12/2023 kerana perintah pembahagian harta tak alih tersebut tidak mengikut pengiraan faraid dan juga tidak berdasarkan surat dan persetujuan pencelah-pencelah bertarikh 29.9.2023 diperenggan 7 surat tersebut. 10 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

12.

13.

Selain daripada itu juga permohonan di dalam Saman Pemula No. MA- 24NCvC-495-12/2023 tersebut bertentangan dengan persetujuan yang telah berjaya dicapai oleh waris-waris yang telah memfailkan Afidavit Persetujuan Bersama di dalam tindakan Saman Pemula ini dan/atau tidak dibuat berdasarkan opsyen/pilihan yang telah diberikan dan/atau dipersetuji sendiri oleh pencelah-pencelah tersebut. Saya merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit tersebut dan mengatakan bahawa walaupun pelupusan dan pengagihan harta pusaka tak alih tersebut memakan masa yang lewat tetapi saya sebagai pentadbir dan waris tetap menjaga kepentingan/ kebajikan pencelah-pencelah yang merupakan adik-adik saya. Atas inesiatif dan tindakan saya, satu skim bantuan dalam bentuk kewangan yang dinamakan skim pencen telah diwujudkan dengan memberikan bantuan kewangan setiap bulan kepada adik-adik saya. Bayaran telah dibuat melalui Puan Kamisah Binti Abas ibu mereka bermula pada tahun Januari tahun 2009 sehingga Disember 2019. Walau bagamanapun bayaran tersebut terpaksa dihentikan kerana keadaan kewangan yang tidak menentu akibat pendemik covid pada tahun 2020. Saya lampirkan disini jadual salinan akaun pembayaran dan no. cek bayaran yang berkaitan Skim pencen tersebut sebagai eksibit "D". Merujuk kepada 21 Afidavit tersebut saya menyatakan bahawa kesemua waris-waris termasuk pencelah-pencelah tidak pernah menuntut kepada saya selaku pentadbir bagi menyediakan dan menyerahkan laporan akaun dan inventori Harta Pusaka Allahyarham Manggar Bin Haniff seperti yang diperuntukan oleh undang-undang. Jika dituntut, saya bersedia menyerahkan laporan akaun dan inventori tersebut. Salinan Laporan Akuan dan Iventori harta pusaka Manggar Bin Hanif dilampirkan dan ditandakan sebagai eksibit

Based on the above, I am satisfied that on the backdrop the circumstances and affidavits filed, that there had been no 11 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA dereliction of duties and responsibilities by the Administrator, notwithstanding the fact that a period of almost 16 years had now passed since he became the Administrator. The delay, was explained.

Both counsels had submitted on s43 and s44 of the PAA together with their respective authorities in support. Ultimately, it would be decided on the exercise of the discretion by this Court based on the available evidence.

I am unable to agree with the submissions on behalf of the 2nd wife's family that the Administrator did not give any reasons or justification as to why he should be entitled to the commission under s.43 of the PAA. It was in fact one of the prayers in MA-

To the contrary, efforts had been made to expedite the administration and whilst awaiting completion, inter alia, the Administrator had even initiated interim measures akin to a private pension scheme for the benefit of all beneficiaries.

It cannot be denied that efforts were made by the Administrator to amicably resolve the matter in respect of the distribution of assets vide both the said Faraid Order and by consent 12 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA (muafakat), hence the application in MA-24NCVC-28-01/2024, albeit unsuccessful.

Evidence of these efforts commenced earnestly since December 2014 being the date of the first disposal of an asset for the benefit of the estate and all subsequent proceedings in the Shariah Court (as detailed in paragraphs 5 to 8 of Enclosure 2 in Suit MA-

In support of the Administrator's entitlement to commission under s43 of PAA, counsel submitted the following cases: - i. ii. Punithavati @ Pusphambigai Poniah v Goh Mary & Ors [2016] 5 MLRA 61 where the Court of Appeal confirmed the applicability of s43 of the PAA, albeit the case revolved around different circumstances. Re Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim [2018] 6 MLRH 273 on the mode of application for commission under s 43 of the PAA. S43 does not prescribe any specific mode of application and such an application can be made in any form which the court may be moved. In our instant case, the Administrator did make the application under prayer (8) of the Originating Summons. 13 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA

S.43(1) of the PAA provides that: -

Executor's or administrator's commission

The Court may in its own discretion allow the executors or administrators a commission not exceeding five per centum on the value of the assets collected by them, but in the allowance or disallowance of the commission the Court shall be guided by its approval or otherwise of their conduct in the administration of the estate.

I am satisfied that there had not been any serious misconduct on the part of the Administrator within the meaning of s43(1) of the

In respect of the allegation that the Administrator had failed to provide accounts, there was a positive assertion that the Administrator was prepared to do so if requested. In Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Ors v Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi & Ors [1998] 4 CLJ 81, the Court of Appeal held: - "The duty to render accounts is one of the basic duties of all executors or trustees. It is the duty of the personal representatives to keep clear and accurate accounts, and to be ready at all times to render such accounts when called upon to do so, see Halsbury's 4th Edn Vol 17 at para 1551 under "Liability to Account". By the terms of the deceased's will the issue of accounts is all important since the residue for distribution is derived at only after deductions of debts and 14 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA expenses have been made. Without the accounts being rendered periodically or at all (as in this case), the beneficiaries would not have any means of knowing whether the estate is being administered properly. (emphasis added)"

It must be noted that there are no mandatory requirements for an administrator in Malaysia to provide detailed periodic accounts to the beneficiaries of an estate. However, it is a duty to keep such accounts and to be able produce the same when requested. In any event, the Administrator is under a mandatory duty to provide a full audited account upon the completion of the administration of the estate of the deceased.

As for the reasons why I granted the order for reimbursement of costs, it is not in dispute that the Administrator has expanded his time and money in the administration of his late father's estate. I do not think it is fair for the Administrator to not be remunerated in the circumstances, particularly when he has to take into consideration the interests of 14 beneficiaries, including himself, and deal with 28 pieces of immovable property. DATED 10th March 2026 15 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA For the Applicant 1SA AZIZ IBRAHIM JUDICIAL COMMISIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA MALACСА : Mahaiyuddin Bin Musa M/s MAHAIYUDDIN, AZLIFA & CO. For the Interveners : Muhammad Farhan Mirza bin Azme M/s SAULT SCOTT & CO. 16 S/N fzlwlVt4F0OfcgLAHXh4cA