(ii) The Applicant had relinquished her rights to become an Administrator pursuant to her own statutory declaration dated 10.9.2021 and as such has no locus standi to file the OS for the issuance of Grant of Letters of Administration to the deceased’s estate and/or there was non-compliance to the RoC. [4] The Citee averred that he is domiciled in Penang as the location of the assets of the deceased. Some of the assets are located in the neighbouring state of Kedah. The deceased and the mother were also domiciled in Penang. The Citee contended that this OS should it be filed in Penang would have not made any difference to the Applicant, now domiciled in the United States of America (the US) for the past 20 years. It was also the Citee’s contention that the application for the Grant of Letters of Administration would be filed in the High Court of Malaya at Penang and thus would be most convenient the matters to be heard together at the same forum. [5] The Citee adduced the statutory declaration of the Applicant made on 10.9.2021 which was not exhibited in her affidavit in support for the OS. That statutory declaration affirmed and declared that she understood the mother and Citee would be applying to the High Court of Malaya at Penang for Letters of Administration to administer and distribute the assets of the deceased. She consented to it and declared that she had no desire to be appointed in such a similar capacity. She was aware of the details of the deceased’s assets and properties in Malaysia and India. Most importantly, para 6 of her statutory declaration stated this: “I hereby declare that after discussion and agreement in Penang between my mother and brother between 4/9/21-9/9/21, I willingly and without coercion, threat and/or promise, give up my claim as beneficiary to my late father’s assets/properties in Malaysia.” [6] In confirming that she had made the solemn statutory declaration under the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960, she had placed her thumbprint and signature thereon. [7] The Citee submitted that as she had relinquished her rights to be an administratrix of the deceased’s estate, she is barred and precluded from applying for or being appointed as administratrix and/or granted the Grant Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased. Order 71 Rule 31 RoC read together with s8 and s10 of the Act were cited where compliance to renunciation ought to be complied with. [8] Non-compliance to the mandatory requirement of Order 7 Rule 3(2) RoC (read together with Order 6 Rule 2(1) (e)(ii)) was stressed by the Citee. As the Application had not stated her occupation in her affidavit in support for the OS, the Citee submitted that the OS is defective ex lege and incurable which makes the OS void ab initio. [9] The Citee further submitted that the mandatory requirement under Order 72 Rule 8(2) RoC to file the Applicant’s affidavit was not done before the issuance of the citation [Enc 8]. There was no verification of the statement of fact made in the citation. Again, the Citee submitted that the citation was defective ex lege and incurable that rendered the OS void ab initio. [10] Further, the Citee averred that he had priority to be appointed Administrator of the deceased’s estate as unlike the Applicant, he is domiciled and work in Penang. Most of the estate are lands which require numerous formalities and requirements at various Land Offices in the respective district which the Applicant would not be able to achieve swiftly and efficiently. [11] Adding drama to this family saga, the Citee averred that the Applicant has knowledge of the bank account under the joint names of the deceased and mother in India under the deposit numbers 2329, 2330 and 2331 that amounted to approximately USD666,852. The certificates are kept with Citee for safekeeping given by the deceased. The Citee was informed by the bank manager in India that several months ago the Applicant and the mother made a police report that falsely claimed the certificates were lost when they knew fully well that the Citee had them in his custody. With the false police report, the join fixed deposit account was closed, and the moneys moved to a new account under the sole name of the mother. The Applicant’s response [12] For the OS, the Applicant sought that she be granted the Letter of Administration of the deceased’s estate as the legitimate daughter. In response to Enc 11 applied for by the Citee, she had then filed in an affidavit that stated her residential address and occupation in the body of her affidavit. Her response on the issue of the jurisdiction of the court was that the mother no longer lives in Penang as the Penang family home had been sold without her knowledge. She now claimed that she had made the statutory declaration under duress when she was in mourning. She believed that it was only to renunciate her rights of administration not her rights to inheritance from the deceased’s intestate estate. When she realised that she was kept in the dark regarding all the affairs of the deceased’s estate, she made another statutory declaration the following month on 8.10.2021 (void declaration) that revoked her statutory declaration. [13] The applicant objected to Enc 11 as the Citee had yet to initiate any action to obtain Letters of Administration. She stated that the Citee has been receiving all the income from the deceased’s estate without provision for the mother’s upkeep. On the other hand, she claimed that her OS shows her effort to administer the deceased’s estate to ensure that their interests in the deceased’s estate are protected and that the beneficiaries have their rightful shares in the proceeds thereof. The Applicant averred that her residence in the US is not a factor to deprive her of being an Administrator. On the other hand, she claimed that her brother is an active medical doctor who does not have the time to handle the affairs of the estate whilst she would be able to as she works online. [14] There was again evidence of a family tussle in the Applicant’s affidavit as she averred the fixed deposits in India was under the mother’s name which did not form part of the deceased’s estate that can be verified from the banks in India. The Applicant claimed that the mother had to avail herself to these funds and it was the Citee who had refused to give the mother any documents. The Applicant averred that the Citee sent the mother on a one-way ticket to India where she was abandoned in her village with no access to medical help when the mother refused to sign over her rights to all the assets that formed the deceased’s estate and those held jointly. The Applicant claimed that sometime in February of 2022 she received a telephone call from one of their relatives in India that informed her the mother was seriously ill. The Applicant travelled to India to provide her with the medical attention and thereafter brought the mother back to the US as the mother had no resources to nursing help or medical attention in India. [15] The Applicant claimed with the expensive healthcare in the US was very expensive and the initial 4-day hospitalisation, the mother recovered. Around March 2023 the mother needed medical attention again for various ailments and was hospitalised for 1 month. There was not much improvement, so the Applicant took the mother back to India and remained with her there to help nurse the mother for 2 months. The mother has recovered but is till frail. The mother is now in a private nursing home Althulya Assisted Living Private Limited that costs RM8,000 monthly. Jurisdiction of this Court [16] The Applicant had knowledge that the Citee would be making an application to the High Court of Malaya in Penang for the Letters of Administration to administer and distribute the deceased’s estate. This is evident from para 3 of her statutory declaration. The Applicant also had knowledge that the Citee is domiciled in Penang and that the deceased’s estate is located there and in the neighbouring state of Kedah. Yet she had filed her OS here at the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. The Applicant cited Order 71 Rule 4 RoC that provided where an application is filed at any High Court of Malaya, the Registrar at the Principal Registry which is in Kuala Lumpur will then duly issue Form C. However, that is for non-contentious probate proceedings. Order 71 Rule 38 RoC directed for contentious probate proceedings, the matter is to be dealt with under Order 72 RoC. [17] Her intentions aside, this Court has the same concurrent jurisdiction as the High Court of Malaya in Penang. Perhaps it was more the forum of convenience that the Citee was alluding to which this Court agrees would be most suited in Penang for the accessibility of the Citee and the deceased’s estate is there and in Kedah, and not in Kuala Lumpur. Nevertheless, at this juncture, this Court will not dismiss the OS on that basis. This Court has the jurisdiction to proceed to deliberate Enc 11 on whether to dismiss the OS on the other reasons as averred to and submitted on by the Citee. Locus standi of the Applicant [18] The Citee relied on the statutory declaration of the Applicant and that she had made it before the Commissioner of Oath before she flew back to the US. Evidence of the conversation between her husband and the Citee showed that hours after their arrival in the US, her husband inquired whether there was a possibility of giving back the power of administration to her family although the Applicant was happy with her decision to renounce her rights. The Applicant then instructed to ignore the message and confirmed that there was to be no more discussion on the matter. A month after, the Applicant’s husband informed the Citee that the Applicant had erred and sought the Citee’s consideration to cancel the statutory declaration but the Citee had already sent the same to the lawyers. [19] The law allows for the Applicant to renunciate her rights and it may be made orally and in writing (s 8 of the Act). The effect of her statutory declaration shall preclude her from applying thereafter for representation – s10 of the Act. The court may at any time allow the Applicant to withdraw her renunciation for the purpose of taking a grant, if it is shown that the withdrawal is for the benefit of the estate or of those interested under the intestacy. [20] In this case, there is no such application by the Applicant for the court order to withdraw her renunciation. What is before this Court is her statutory declaration that had renounced all her rights. Therefore, as far as her OS is concerned, she does not have the necessary locus standi to apply for the letter of administration and grant of probate to the deceased’s estate as her statutory declaration is still valid and binding. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lee Ngan Fong & Ors v Gan Bo Tan & Ors [2011] MLJU 1493 is very clear where when the parties have no standing in law to pursue the action, no court can confer jurisdiction on them. [21] As the Applicant has not obtained any court leave to validate the void declaration, her statutory declaration remains effective and binding. Thus, the Citee’s submission is correct that she lacked locus standi from the very beginning when she filed this OS. The affidavit in support for the OS did not allude to her statutory declaration and had it not been the Citee’s affidavits, this Court would have been under the illusion that it was a non-contentious probate application on the basis that she was the legitimate daughter. The OS is void ab initio due to the Applicant’s lack of locus standi – see Court of Appeal’s decision in Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Bhd v Augusto Pompeo Romei & Anor [2014] 3 MLJ 672, Hup Lee Coachbuilders Holdings Sdn Bhd v Cycle & Carriage Bintang Bhd [2013] 1 MLJ 406. [22] It is this Court’s considered view that the issue of whether there was consideration or otherwise when she had executed the statutory declaration is to be deliberated in depth at the forum where she obtains leave of the court to invalidate her renunciation. The arguments are not to be considered here. When leave of the Court is obtained, the Applicant can then perhaps argue to be made administrator or co-administrator to the deceased’s estate. The court at that instance would consider all the facts including the well-being of the mother and the events surrounding the care and provision of the mother. If it is true that this family would not avail themselves of mediation to resolve the issues that have life-long implications, the Applicant must proceed with the steps provided for by the law. [23] This Court also observed that the Applicant’s OS is tainted with irregularities – Order 72 Rule 8(2) RoC requires that before the citation [Enc 8] was issued, the Applicant was to file an affidavit verifying the statements of facts to be made in the citation which she had not. The Applicant too had not properly exhibited the statutory declaration and the void declaration in full. The Applicant had implored that mere technicalities can be regularised and cured. Still, it cannot dislodge the fact that she has no locus standi to begin with in the filing of this OS. [24] Based on the facts and the law applicable, this Court allows the Citee’s application [Enc 11] and dismisses the OS. It is declared that it was void ab initio on the premise that the Applicant has no locus standi. Costs of RM8,000 is deemed reasonable and is awarded to the Citee. The Applicant is to pay that forthwith. DATED 16 JANUARY 2024 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for the Applicant : Tetuan Meg Nacha Zahir & Co Counsel for the Respondent : Tetuan Arthur Yeong Nonee Ashirin