The Court of Appeal in Lai Wooi Giap v. Rosli Zakaria & Anor [2020] 7 CLJ 477 decided that the respondents were entitled to an equity in the deceased’s estate. The absence of Letters of Administration (LA) should not be an obstruction to the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate to take legal steps to protect the subject which had been proven to have been fraudulently transferred to the appellant.

The facts of the case:

The respondents are siblings and the children of the late En Zakaria bin Omar (“Zakaria”) who passed away on 17 June 1992. Zakaria’s father was the late Oomar bin Mohamed (“Oomar”).

The original co-owners of the subject land were Oomar and his three other siblings (collectively, “the original owners”). It is undisputed that Letters of Administration (LA) was not obtained from High Court in respect of the estates of Zakaria and Oomar.

The original owners had purportedly signed a power of attorney (PA) dated 16 November 2005 (“the impugned PA”). The subject land was transferred to Mr. Lai Woo Giap (“the appellant”) via Borang 14A form on 28 June 2006. The respondents filed an action in Court on 30 November 2011 to obtain orders to declare the impugned power of attorney (PA) as a falsified document.

The respondents alleged that they have an interest in the subject land that forms part of Oomar’s estate as his grandchildren. They contended that it was impossible for Oomar to execute the impugned power of attorney (PA) as he died in the 1930’s or the 1940’s. Hence, the PA is therefore a fake and falsified document. The other original owners had all passed away several decades ago and at any rate, well before 2005.

Therefore, the transaction to transfer the subject land was null and void and should be set aside to revert the ownership of the subject land back to the names of the original owners.

The main issue:

Whether, the respondents, qua beneficiaries of a deceased co-owner of land may file a legal action to set aside the fraudulent transfer of the land to the purported purchaser and consequently, to revert the ownership of the land to the deceased’s estate without obtaining Letters of Administration (LA) from Court?

In other words, the primary question is whether by reason of the absence of Letters of Administration (LA), does the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to file an action and whether this action is thereby considered as incompetent and a nullity.

Court of Appeal’s decision

A beneficiary to an estate requires Letters of Administration (LA) to commence an action on behalf of the estate, and needs to show special circumstances to support the suit. With this said, it is not utterly erroneous to say that a beneficiary also has an equity which may entitle him to seek on behalf of the estate the remedy of a declaratory judgment.

Hence, where a property under an estate has been fraudulently transferred to a purported purchaser, the beneficiary is entitled and indeed empowered in law, even in the absence of the Letters of Administration (LA), to institute an action to set aside or nullify the fraudulent transfer. The Court recognized this action as competent and valid, as the fraudulent transfer, by itself, provides the required special circumstances and clothes the beneficiary with the required locus standi without having to first obtain Letters of Administration (LA).

In conclusion, the Court is of the view that special circumstances did exist after the finding of facts in this case to warrant the filing of the action by the respondents to regain ownership of the subject land with regards to the fraudulent transfer of the subject land.

The Court of Appeal in Lai Wooi Giap v. Rosli Zakaria & Anor [2020] 7 CLJ 477 decided that the respondents were entitled to an equity in the deceased’s estate. The absence of Letters of Administration (LA) should not be an obstruction to the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate to take legal steps to protect the subject which had been proven to have been fraudulently transferred to the appellant.

The facts of the case:

The respondents are siblings and the children of the late En Zakaria bin Omar (“Zakaria”) who passed away on 17 June 1992. Zakaria’s father was the late Oomar bin Mohamed (“Oomar”).

The original co-owners of the subject land were Oomar and his three other siblings (collectively, “the original owners”). It is undisputed that Letters of Administration (LA) was not obtained from High Court in respect of the estates of Zakaria and Oomar.

The original owners had purportedly signed a power of attorney (PA) dated 16 November 2005 (“the impugned PA”). The subject land was transferred to Mr. Lai Woo Giap (“the appellant”) via Borang 14A form on 28 June 2006. The respondents filed an action in Court on 30 November 2011 to obtain orders to declare the impugned power of attorney (PA) as a falsified document.

The respondents alleged that they have an interest in the subject land that forms part of Oomar’s estate as his grandchildren. They contended that it was impossible for Oomar to execute the impugned power of attorney (PA) as he died in the 1930’s or the 1940’s. Hence, the PA is therefore a fake and falsified document. The other original owners had all passed away several decades ago and at any rate, well before 2005.

Therefore, the transaction to transfer the subject land was null and void and should be set aside to revert the ownership of the subject land back to the names of the original owners.

The main issue:

Whether, the respondents, qua beneficiaries of a deceased co-owner of land may file a legal action to set aside the fraudulent transfer of the land to the purported purchaser and consequently, to revert the ownership of the land to the deceased’s estate without obtaining Letters of Administration (LA) from Court?

In other words, the primary question is whether by reason of the absence of Letters of Administration (LA), does the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to file an action and whether this action is thereby considered as incompetent and a nullity.

Court of Appeal’s decision

A beneficiary to an estate requires Letters of Administration (LA) to commence an action on behalf of the estate, and needs to show special circumstances to support the suit. With this said, it is not utterly erroneous to say that a beneficiary also has an equity which may entitle him to seek on behalf of the estate the remedy of a declaratory judgment.

Hence, where a property under an estate has been fraudulently transferred to a purported purchaser, the beneficiary is entitled and indeed empowered in law, even in the absence of the Letters of Administration (LA), to institute an action to set aside or nullify the fraudulent transfer. The Court recognized this action as competent and valid, as the fraudulent transfer, by itself, provides the required special circumstances and clothes the beneficiary with the required locus standi without having to first obtain Letters of Administration (LA).

In conclusion, the Court is of the view that special circumstances did exist after the finding of facts in this case to warrant the filing of the action by the respondents to regain ownership of the subject land with regards to the fraudulent transfer of the subject land.

The Court of Appeal in Lai Wooi Giap v. Rosli Zakaria & Anor [2020] 7 CLJ 477 decided that the respondents were entitled to an equity in the deceased’s estate. The absence of Letters of Administration (LA) should not be an obstruction to the beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate to take legal steps to protect the subject which had been proven to have been fraudulently transferred to the appellant.

The facts of the case:

The respondents are siblings and the children of the late En Zakaria bin Omar (“Zakaria”) who passed away on 17 June 1992. Zakaria’s father was the late Oomar bin Mohamed (“Oomar”).

The original co-owners of the subject land were Oomar and his three other siblings (collectively, “the original owners”). It is undisputed that Letters of Administration (LA) was not obtained from High Court in respect of the estates of Zakaria and Oomar.

The original owners had purportedly signed a power of attorney (PA) dated 16 November 2005 (“the impugned PA”). The subject land was transferred to Mr. Lai Woo Giap (“the appellant”) via Borang 14A form on 28 June 2006. The respondents filed an action in Court on 30 November 2011 to obtain orders to declare the impugned power of attorney (PA) as a falsified document.

The respondents alleged that they have an interest in the subject land that forms part of Oomar’s estate as his grandchildren. They contended that it was impossible for Oomar to execute the impugned power of attorney (PA) as he died in the 1930’s or the 1940’s. Hence, the PA is therefore a fake and falsified document. The other original owners had all passed away several decades ago and at any rate, well before 2005.

Therefore, the transaction to transfer the subject land was null and void and should be set aside to revert the ownership of the subject land back to the names of the original owners.

The main issue:

Whether, the respondents, qua beneficiaries of a deceased co-owner of land may file a legal action to set aside the fraudulent transfer of the land to the purported purchaser and consequently, to revert the ownership of the land to the deceased’s estate without obtaining Letters of Administration (LA) from Court?

In other words, the primary question is whether by reason of the absence of Letters of Administration (LA), does the respondents lacked the requisite locus standi to file an action and whether this action is thereby considered as incompetent and a nullity.

Court of Appeal’s decision

A beneficiary to an estate requires Letters of Administration (LA) to commence an action on behalf of the estate, and needs to show special circumstances to support the suit. With this said, it is not utterly erroneous to say that a beneficiary also has an equity which may entitle him to seek on behalf of the estate the remedy of a declaratory judgment.

Hence, where a property under an estate has been fraudulently transferred to a purported purchaser, the beneficiary is entitled and indeed empowered in law, even in the absence of the Letters of Administration (LA), to institute an action to set aside or nullify the fraudulent transfer. The Court recognized this action as competent and valid, as the fraudulent transfer, by itself, provides the required special circumstances and clothes the beneficiary with the required locus standi without having to first obtain Letters of Administration (LA).

In conclusion, the Court is of the view that special circumstances did exist after the finding of facts in this case to warrant the filing of the action by the respondents to regain ownership of the subject land with regards to the fraudulent transfer of the subject land.