Jaireus@Mary Fernandez v Rosemarie Adolfo Apagalang (AA-22NCvC-18-03/2023)

ROSEMARIE ADOLFO APAGALANG 15 (Passport Philippines No.: P0793100B) …FIRST DEFENDANT

LEMBAGA KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA … SECOND DEFENDANT 20 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1]. This case involves a three-way conflict between a grieving mother’s expectation to inherit her late son’s EPF savings, the late son’s own decision to nominate a third party as beneficiary, 25 and the legal consequences flowing from the applicable statute. The mother, now the plaintiff, asks the court to look behind a formally registered EPF nomination and declare it invalid on the ground that her son lacked mental and physical capacity. The EPF (second defendant), on the other hand, resists the 30 05/01/2026 12:09:10 AA-22NCvC-18-03/2023 Kand. 59 challenge and maintains that the nomination was properly executed in accordance with the law. The court must therefore balance sympathy for a grieving mother with proof, and decide whether suspicion alone is sufficient to unsettle a statutory act intended to ensure certainty and finality in the distribution of 35 retirement savings. Background facts [2]. The plaintiff, Jaireus @ Mary Fernandez, is the mother of the late Roy Bhardwaj A/L Durga Das, who passed away on 17 August 2022 due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The deceased was 40 a registered contributor of the Employees Provident Fund (“EPF”) and, at the time of his death, had accumulated savings amounting to approximately RM327,868.03, which is an agreed fact. The plaintiff, as the lawful mother and next of kin, approached the EPF office in Ipoh to claim her late son’s 45 savings, believing that she had been named as his nominee/beneficiary. To her shock, she was informed that the deceased had nominated his former domestic maid, the first defendant, Rosemarie Adolfo Apagalang, a Filipino national, as the sole beneficiary of his EPF contributions. 50 [3]. The plaintiff disputes the authenticity and validity of this purported nomination. She contends that at the material time, the deceased was critically ill, suffering from diabetes, amputation of fingers and toes, and significant mental confusion and memory loss, rendering him incapable of understanding or 55 executing any legal document. She further asserts that the first defendant had fraudulently caused her name to appear as the nominee despite the deceased’s condition, and that the second defendant failed to properly verify the execution or the deceased’s presence at the counter. 60 [4]. The first defendant, was employed by the deceased and his family as a housemaid since 2014. Immigration records confirmed that she was an illegal immigrant at all material times. She left Malaysia on 12 April 2023, as evidenced by an official letter from the Immigration Department tendered in court. 65 Although she had retained solicitors to file a Defence and Witness Statement in the proceeding, her solicitors later discharged themselves before trial. Consequently, the first defendant did not attend the trial, and the court proceeded with the trial in her absence. The plaintiff sought leave to enter 70 judgment in default against her. The matter proceeded against the second defendant, whose officer, among others, Krishna Malla A/P Krishnasamy (SD1), gave evidence affirming that the deceased personally attended the EPF counter and executed the nomination form in her presence. 75 Summary of evidence by witnesses in the trial [5]. The trial proceeded over two hearing days on 9 September 2024 and 17 December 2024. The plaintiff called one witness, namely the plaintiff herself, Jaireus @ Mary Fernandez (SP1), and thereafter closed her case. The second defendant (EPF) 80 called three (3) witnesses, Krishna Malla A/P Krishnasamy (SD1), who is a counter officer, Rosnah Muhammad Lidin (SD2), who is Timbalan Pengurus at the Transaction Management Advisory, Transaction Management Department, and finally Mohamad Ashraq Bin Nadzeri (SD3), who is a 85 Manager in Member’s Estate Management, Transaction Management Department, in charge of handling death claims/withdrawals. The first defendant did not testify, having failed to attend the trial after leaving the country. Jaireus @ Mary Fernandez (SP1) 90 [6]. The plaintiff, a grieving 86-year-old mother of the deceased, testified as the sole witness for the plaintiff. In her witness statement, she asserted that her son died on 17 August 2022, leaving approximately RM327,868.03 in his EPF account. She expressed profound shock upon discovering that the first 95 defendant, a former maid hired to care for the deceased, had been named the sole beneficiary. The plaintiff contended that the nomination was fraudulent or made under suspicious circumstances, as the deceased allegedly lacked the mental and physical capacity to execute such a document. She detailed 100 the deceased’s chronic health issues, including the amputation of his fingers and toes in 2021, and claimed he suffered from memory loss and confusion. [7]. During cross-examination, the defence challenged the lack of medical evidence to support her claims of deceased’s “insanity” 105 or lack of mental capacity. The plaintiff admitted that she did not possess a medical report certifying him as a mentally unsound person. She also acknowledged that the deceased had been discharged from Sunway Medical Centre in a stable condition prior to the date of the disputed nomination. When questioned 110 about specific hospital records and tenancy agreements, she stated she was unaware of them. During re-examination, she clarified her earlier use of the term "insane," saying that she did not believe her son was truly insane because he was "normal" and able to speak with her coherently before his passing. In a 115 gist, the plaintiff’s testimony focused on the narrative that the maid had taken advantage of a deceased son's physical frailty and that the deceased had personally promised her she would be named the nominee. Krishna Malla A/P Krishnasamy (SD1) 120 [8]. Krishna Malla, an EPF staff member with 32 years of experience, testified as the officer who processed the deceased’s nomination form at the Ipoh branch on 29 June

In her witness statement, she explained the standard operating procedure for nominations, which requires the 125 member to be present, provide their MyKad, and undergo biometric verification. She stated that the deceased appeared at her counter, his identity was confirmed via a "match" on the Government Multi-Purpose Card (GMPC) reader, and he seemed to be conscious and aware of the transaction. She 130 testified that she explained the effect of the nomination, i.e., naming the first defendant as 100% beneficiary, and that the deceased confirmed his agreement by providing thumbprints on the KWSP form 4. [9]. During a rigorous cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel 135 questioned her credibility, suggesting she had been demoted from "Counter Executive" to "Support Clerk" due to disciplinary issues regarding this specific case. The witness firmly denied this, explaining that her grade (G3) remained the same and that she had requested a transfer from the counter after 22 years of 140 service. She admitted she did not specifically remember the deceased’s face, citing the high volume of customers (30 to 40 daily). Still, she maintained that the system in place at the office would not have allowed the transaction to proceed without a biometric match. The plaintiff’s counsel challenged her on how 145 the deceased could provide thumbprints if his fingers were amputated; she insisted that the individual before her had the thumb to produce a match. She also confirmed that CCTV footage is overwritten every two months and was unavailable by the time the suit commenced. Under questioning from the court, 150 she explained that while she could not "prove" the thumbprint on the form was the deceased's through the document alone, her official stamp served as proof of the verification process she conducted on the said day. Rosnah Binti Mohd Lidin (SD2) 155 [10]. Rosnah Binti Mohd Lidin, the Deputy Manager of EPF’s Transaction Management Advisory, testified regarding the handling of the plaintiff’s objection to the nomination. Her testimony centered on the administrative and legal steps taken by EPF after receiving the plaintiff’s protest on 30 August 2022. 160 According to her witness statement, she issued several letters to the plaintiff between September and November 2022, advising her that the account would be temporarily frozen to allow her to obtain a court injunction. She explained that EPF has a statutory duty to pay the registered nominee unless a 165 court order directs otherwise. Since the plaintiff failed to serve an injunctive order within the stipulated deadlines, EPF proceeded to release the funds. [11]. During cross-examination, Rosnah confirmed that EPF was notified of the dispute within two (2) months of the nomination 170 date. When asked if an investigation was launched, she stated she had reviewed the system and documents and found them to be "in order." However, she admitted she did not interview the counter staff (SD1) at that time, as the documentary evidence, in particular the biometric match, was considered 175 sufficient proof of a valid transaction. She clarified that the GMPC system generates a record showing a "match" when a member's thumbprint aligns with their MyKad chip, which serves as the primary safeguard against fraud. She acknowledged that while the GMPC printout in the bundle of documents lacked a 180 specific timestamp, it was standard practice to attach it to the corresponding application. Her testimony reinforced the position that EPF acted as a neutral trustee following established legal procedures and that the burden was on the plaintiff to secure a court order to stop the payment. 185 Mohamad Ashraq Bin Nadzeri (SD3) [12]. Mohamad Ashraq Bin Nadzeri, a Manager at EPF’s Member’s Estate Management department, provided testimony regarding the death claim or withdrawal process and the eventual payment to the first defendant. His witness statement detailed 190 the distinction between "nomination" and "non-nomination" cases. He explained that for non-Muslim members, the nominee is the legal beneficiary of the member’s savings. He noted that the plaintiff had applied for the death withdrawal but was rejected because she was not the named nominee. However, 195 the plaintiff did receive a RM2,500 death benefit, which is a separate assistance payment made to the next-of-kin. He testified that the payment to the first defendant was a valid discharge of EPF’s liability, as the plaintiff’s initial legal action (via Originating Summons) had been withdrawn and no 200 injunction was in place at the time of payment. [13]. In cross-examination, Ashraq provided formal evidence on EPF’s internal protocols. He confirmed that his team, led by Rosnah (SD2), conducted a review of the nomination's regularity. He was questioned on the necessity of GMPC for 205 every transaction; he clarified that while a MyKad is always required, the GMPC biometric "match" is the definitive proof of a member's physical presence. He stood by the department's decision to approve the first defendant’s withdrawal, asserting that the nomination was registered in accordance with the 210 Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 and Employees Provident Fund Regulations 2001. He stated that the first defendant had initially faced a payment failure due to a name mismatch at the bank, but eventually collected the payment in April 2023 after the plaintiff’s first lawsuit was withdrawn. His 215 testimony served to confirm that EPF had fulfilled its statutory obligations and that the first defendant remained the legally recognized beneficiary in EPF’s records. Issues [14]. The court’s principal issues for determination are: 220 1. whether the deceased personally attend the EPF Ipoh branch on 29 June 2022 and affix his thumbprint on the nomination form.

whether the deceased possessed sufficient physical and 225 mental capacity to do so.

whether the second defendant fulfilled its statutory duty and verification obligations in accepting and registering the nomination. 230 Courts finding Issue 1: Whether the deceased personally attend the EPF Ipoh 235 branch on 29 June 2022 and affix his thumbprint on the nomination form? [15]. The plaintiff’s central contention was that the deceased could not have personally executed the nomination form because his fingers were amputated. The second defendant, however, 240 maintained that the biometric verification process was properly conducted and that the system confirmed a match with the GMPC. [16]. During cross-examination, SD1 Krishna Malla consistently testified that the deceased appeared before her, produced his 245 identity card, and placed his thumbprint on the biometric scanner. She explained that once the biometric reading matched the GMPC record, she verified his identity and allowed the nomination to proceed. Her account was corroborated by SD3 Mohamad Ashraq Bin Nadzeri, who confirmed the 250 deceased’s attendance that day. [17]. The plaintiff sought to rely on the GMPC printout showing the date 11 November 2015. The second defendant’s witness clarified that 11.11.2015 was the date of the deceased’s original GMPC enrolment, not the verification date. The system merely 255 referenced the stored fingerprint template first registered in

The court accepts this explanation as credible and consistent with standard biometric procedures, where the original template remains valid for all subsequent verifications. [18]. While the plaintiff questioned the absence of CCTV footage, the 260 second defendant reasonably explained that the branch’s CCTV recordings are automatically overwritten after 90 days, as part of its retention policy. Given that this case was raised long after the alleged incident, the absence of footage is not, by itself, proof that the deceased never attended. 265 [19]. Having observed the demeanour of SD1, I find her testimony forthright and consistent. She withstood cross-examination without contradiction. Her explanation of the biometric verification process was technical, detailed, and plausible. In contrast, the plaintiff’s assertions are unsupported and remain 270 conjecture. Issue 2: Whether the deceased possessed sufficient physical and mental capacity to execute the nomination form? [20]. The plaintiff bore the legal burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased did not execute the nomination 275 or was incapable of doing so. She relied mainly on a Sunway Medical Centre medical report dated 5 October 2021, which recorded amputations of toes and fingers. However, this report predates the nomination by nearly nine months and does not conclusively show that both thumbs were amputated or 280 unusable by June 2022. The Sunway Medical report dated 5.10.2021 states, among others: “He had a long and protracted hospital stay where he was initially admitted on 25/7/21 with severe sepsis with subsequent multi-organ failure needing 285 intubation, ventilation and haemodialysis. He also had digital gangrene in his fingers and toes resulting in several fingers and toes. He however got through the above and was discharged on the 18/9/21. I reviewed him on 24/9/21 290 and he was stable from a cardiovascular viewpoint” [21]. Critically, the plaintiff did not call any medical witness to clarify whether a thumbprint could still be taken from the deceased, given the presence of gangrene in his fingers. Also, there are 295 no forensic expert evidence to show that the thumbprint appearing on the nomination form could not have come from the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, this court cannot safely conclude that the deceased lacked the physical ability to affix a thumbprint. 300 [22]. Even accepting that the deceased’s health was compromised. Incapacity cannot be assumed without cogent medical or expert evidence. The plaintiff’s case rests on personal belief and subjective observation. Such assertions, unsupported by reliable proof, are insufficient to displace the presumption under 305 section 114 (illustration (e)) of the Evidence Act 1950 that official acts are performed regularly, honestly, and conscientiously. [23]. Section 114 (illustration (e)) of the Evidence Act 1950 provides: 310 “114. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case 315

that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed” [24]. In the absence of evidence giving rise to legitimate suspicion or 320 impropriety, it would be wrong to treat the actions of EPF officers, namely Krishna Malla (SD1), a public servant discharging her statutory duties, as untrustworthy merely on conjecture. In that regard, the Court of Appeal in Wan Amirul Mubin Wan Kamaruddin v PP [2017] MLJU 1253; [2017] 325 CLJU 1478; [2017] MLRAU 351, states that police witnesses are presumed to act honestly in official duties, in the absence of cogent contrary evidence, and mere denial or suspicion is insufficient to discredit their testimony. His Lordship Idrus Harun JCA (as he then was) observed as follows: 330 “[28] … It is unthinkable that PW4 had fabricated evidence in view of the complete absence of any evidence or allegation by the appellant that PW4 had made up a story regarding Exhibit P30. In fact, the appellant admitted during cross-examination that PW4, PW5 as well as PW7 had 335 absolutely no reasons to lie about him. PW4 and PW5 were police officers who were merely performing their duties and they had no reasons to lie or to frame up the appellant whom they said they did not know … [30] It is significant to bear in mind that since both PW4 and 340 PW5, were carrying on their official duties at the relevant time, in law the court is entitled to presume that their official acts were regularly performed and prima facie they did so honestly and conscientiously. Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act 1950 in this regard provides that the court 345 may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In the case of PP v. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim [2014] 4 CLJ, the Court of Appeal said-It must be borne in mind that s. 114 illustration 350

of the Evidence Act 1950 provides that the court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In State of Punjab v. Rameshwar Dass [1957] Cri LJ 1630, the Punjab and Haryana Court held at p. 1631 355 as follows: It is well settled that prima facie the public servants must be assumed to act honestly and conscientiously. It would, therefore, be basically wrong, without other cogent ground to consider 360 them as untrustworthy witness in respect of their activities in performance of their official duties merely because of their official status unless the evidence is considered to be suspicious and that the conviction of the accused cannot be 365 sustained on the statements of the official witnesses. The presumption that a person acts honestly applied as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without 370 good grounds? [31] Accordingly, without cogent reasons that would allow us to hold otherwise, it would be manifestly wrong to consider PW4 and PW5 as untrustworthy witnesses in handling this case. In the end what we have before us is 375 nothing more than the bare oral testimony which was a mere denial.” (Underlined emphasised) [25]. The court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove incapacity. In the 380 absence of cogent medical or expert evidence, the deceased is presumed to have had sufficient capacity, and EPF official acts are presumed regular. Issue 3: Whether the second defendant fulfilled its statutory duty and verification obligations in accepting and 385 registering the nomination? [26]. The plaintiff contended that the second defendant failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991 and the EPF Regulations 2001. Having considered the evidence, I find that EPF adhered to its 390 prescribed procedures in processing and registering the nomination. [27]. In How Yew Hock (sebagai wasi untuk Yee Sow Thoo @ Chor Siew Tho (P) v Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [1996] 3 CLJ 1; [1996] 2 MLJ 474; [1996] 2 AMR 395 2161; [1996] 1 MLRA 253, the Federal Court affirmed that an EPF nomination is a statutory nomination, deriving its force from the EPF Act and Regulations, and not a testamentary disposition. A nomination executed in the prescribed form (Form KWSP-4), duly signed, attested, and registered in 400 accordance with the Regulations, is valid and effective. His Lordship Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah FCJ observed: “Therefore, in the instant case, it was obvious that the said nomination was a statutory nomination, which operated by force of the EPF Act and Regulations. … The nomination to 405 be valid must be made in writing on the prescribed form (Form KWSP-4) signed by the nominator whose signature must be attested by a witness. … In fact, it was not disputed that the said nomination had complied with the aforesaid provisions and was therefore valid.” 410 (Underlined emphasised) [28]. In the present case, SD1 explained the verification process undertaken at the counter: the member presents the identity card, the officer verifies the personal particulars, and biometric 415 verification is conducted through the GMPC system. Upon confirmation of a successful match, the nomination proceeds. SD1 further testified that the deceased verbally confirmed the nominee’s details before affixing his thumbprint. [29]. The second defendant submits that it has fully complied with the 420 legal requirements under the EPF Act 1991 and the EPF Regulations 2001: a) that it has complied with Section 25 of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, which provides that the EPF Board is the trustee of the fund. This means the Board holds 425 the credited amount in trust for the nominee lawfully nominated by the deceased member. b) that the nomination in question was made in accordance with Regulation 6(1) EPF Regulations 2001, which allows EPF members aged eighteen and above to nominate eligible 430 persons or institutions using Form EPF 4 to receive their EPF savings upon their death. c) that the nomination remained valid at the time of the member’s death and was not revoked. As Regulation 7(1) EPF Regulations 2001 provides that a nomination only 435 ceases upon the nominee’s death, revocation, a new nomination, or in certain cases specific to Muslim members. In this case, none of these disqualifying events occurred, and therefore the nomination was still in force d) that it made payment in accordance with Regulation 9(2) of 440 the EPF Regulations 2001, which mandates that where a valid nomination exists, the EPF Board must pay the credited amount to the nominee, subject to qualifications concerning nominees who are minors, Muslims, or incapacitated. Such payment constitutes a valid discharge under the law, 445 notwithstanding any written law to the contrary. e) that the nomination was duly made in Form KWSP 4, signed by the EPF member and received by the Board during the member’s lifetime, in compliance with Regulation 34 EPF Regulations 2001. Further, the nomination contained all the 450 necessary particulars as required under Regulation 35 EPF Regulations 2001, including full identity details of both the member and nominee, their relationship, and share allocation. 455 [30]. This Court accepts that the second defendant complied with the relevant provisions of the EPF Act and Regulations. There is no legal requirement for EPF to keep biometric records permanently or to produce CCTV footage unless such evidence was requested at the relevant time. The absence of these 460 supporting records does not affect the validity of a nomination that was properly completed, registered, and approved. [31]. Accordingly, given that a valid nomination was made by the deceased during his lifetime, and consistent with Regulation 9(2) of the EPF Regulations 2001, the nominee, the first 465 defendant, is entitled to receive 100% of the deceased’s EPF credit, and any payment made by the second defendant to the nominee constitutes a valid discharge. [32]. The plaintiff’s allegation that EPF was negligent is unsupported by the evidence. The consistent testimony of the officer, 470 together with the contemporaneous nomination form bearing dual thumbprints, sufficiently rebuts any inference of procedural impropriety. Other issue considered 4. Witness Credibility 475 [33]. The court attaches significant weight to the testimony of Krishna Malla (SD1). Her evidence was consistent, supported by procedural explanation, and unshaken during cross-examination. [34]. The plaintiff, by contrast, testified primarily on her belief that her 480 son was bedridden and incoherent. However, her statements were not corroborated by independent witnesses or medical professionals. There was no caretaker, nurse, or doctor called to verify that the deceased could not have physically attended the EPF office in June 2022 and executed the nomination form. 485 [35]. In weighing this evidence, the court prefers the evidence of the EPF witnesses, who gave factual, procedural testimony grounded in official records, to that of the plaintiff, which was speculative in the absence of supporting material evidence. 490

Legal principle on challenges to nomination [36]. The EPF nomination is a statutory act governed by the EPF Act and its subsidiary regulations. Once duly executed and registered, it carries a presumption of regularity. 495 [37]. To invalidate such a nomination, the challenger must prove fraud, forgery, or procedural illegality. Mere doubts or suspicions are insufficient. If challenges of this nature were allowed on unsubstantiated claims, it would seriously undermine public confidence in the EPF’s administration and 500 open the floodgates to endless disputes by dissatisfied family members. [38]. The court must be cautious not to disrupt a system that serves millions of EPF contributors. EPF officers cannot be expected to defend each nomination posthumously unless clear evidence 505 of wrongdoing is produced.

Evaluation of Evidence [39]. After reviewing the whole record, I find that the second defendant has successfully rebutted the plaintiff’s allegations on the following matters: 510 a) The GMPC date (11.11.2015) corresponds to the deceased’s original biometric enrolment, not the verification date. The officer’s explanation is consistent with standard biometric protocols. b) The absence of CCTV footage was adequately explained 515 by EPF’s retention policy and cannot be construed as suppression of evidence. c) The nomination form bears the deceased’s name, particulars, and two thumbprints. There is no contrary expert or forensic evidence to disprove authenticity. 520 d) The plaintiff produced no medical or technical evidence showing the deceased was unable to use his thumb. The medical report merely records partial amputations in 2021 but does not state the total loss of both thumbs. e) The witness for EPF gave clear and detailed testimony, and 525 another officer corroborated her evidence from the same branch. [40]. Given these factors, the second defendant has discharged its evidentiary burden on the balance of probabilities.

Broader Consideration 530 [41]. The court must also consider the implications of setting aside a duly registered nomination on uncertain grounds. The EPF framework relies on the integrity of its verification process to safeguard public confidence. If courts were to invalidate nominations based solely on family disputes or uncorroborated 535 suspicions, it would destabilise a system designed to provide swift and final distribution of members’ savings. [42]. In this case, the plaintiff’s grievance appears rooted more in familial disappointment than in concrete evidence of procedural failure. The court sympathises with the plaintiff as a grieving 540 mother, but sentiment cannot displace the legal requirement of proof. Conclusion [43]. Having carefully considered all evidence and submissions, the court finds as follows: 545 1. The deceased, Roy Bhardwaj A/L Durga Das, personally attended the EPF Ipoh branch on 29 June 2022 and executed the nomination form naming the first defendant as beneficiary.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the deceased’s thumb was 550 amputated or affected by gangrene to such an extent that a thumbprint could not be obtained.

The second defendant, EPF, complied with its statutory duty and standard operating procedures in verifying and registering the nomination.

There is no credible evidence of fraud, forgery, or procedural impropriety on the part of the second defendant. [44]. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The court affirms that the deceased’s nomination 560 of the first defendant, Rosemarie Adolfo Apagalang, as beneficiary of his EPF savings, is valid and enforceable. As against the first defendant, who failed to appear for this trial, the court records judgment in default against the first defendant without affecting the judgment rendered in favour of the second 565 defendant, namely, the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, whereby the nomination form executed by the deceased on 29.6.2022 remains valid, proper, and effective. Dated : 5 January 2026 570 [MOSES SUSAYAN] JUDGE 575 HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK 580 585 Counsel : For the Plaintiff : Domnic Selvam a/l Gnanapragasam 590 Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Domnic Pragasam Tan & Co] Kuala Lumpur For the 2nd Defendant : Nora Badaruddin 595 Legal Officer (together with Nadia Puaad & Nur Alwani Mohd Zulhaini & Nur Muthana Hazni Azmy) Employees Provident Fund 600 Shah Alam, Selangor Headnotes EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND — Nomination — Challenge to validity — Whether court may look behind formally registered EPF 605 nomination — Allegation of incapacity and procedural impropriety — Whether suspicion sufficient to invalidate statutory nomination. EVIDENCE — Presumptions — Section 114 illustration (e) Evidence Act 1950 — Presumption of regularity of official acts — Whether acts of EPF officers presumed honestly and conscientiously performed — 610 Absence of cogent contrary evidence