The court affirmed that an applicant for Letters of Administration must demonstrate fitness, and allegations of impropriety or conflict of interest must be substantiated with credible evidence, which was not established in this case.

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for a grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the applicant's deceased sister, Yap Ah Bae, who died intestate on 29 July 2023. The deceased was survived by two brothers, namely the applicant and the respondent, Yap Seu. As the next of kin, both the applicant and the respondent were beneficiaries of the deceased's estate.

[2] The respondent opposed the application and objected to the applicant's appointment as administrator of the deceased's estate. The respondent alleged that the applicant was unfit to administer the estate due to conflicts of interest, failure to disclose material facts and other improprieties. The respondent further raised allegations concerning improper transfers of property, concealment of assets and the applicant's conduct in related legal proceedings.

[3] Upon careful examination of the application and the affidavits submissions and considering the positions of parties as deliberated by both learned counsel, this court allowed the application.

Brief Matrix Of Facts

[4] The deceased, Yap Ah Bae, passed away on 29 July 2023 at the age of 64. At the time of her demise, she was unmarried and had no children. As she died intestate, her estate devolved upon her surviving siblings in accordance with the applicable laws of intestacy. Her next of kin and legal beneficiaries were the applicant and the respondent.

[5] On 8 May 2024, the applicant's solicitors issued a formal letter to the respondent seeking to clarify his stance on the administration of the deceased's estate. The letter expressly requested the respondent to indicate whether he objected to the applicant's appointment as administrator and, if so, to provide reasons for his objections. The letter was dispatched via courier and successfully delivered to the respondent on 11 May 2024. Despite proper service of the letter, the respondent did not favour any response.

[6] In the middle of June 2024, the applicant commenced these proceedings by filing an originating summons seeking to be appointed as the administrator of the deceased's estate. On the same date, the applicant also filed an application requesting an exemption from the requirement to furnish sureties or security for the due administration of the estate. The applicant contended that such exemption was justified under the circumstances of the case.

[7] The applicant filed a citation against the respondent compelling him to enter an appearance and either accept or renounce his right to the grant of letters of administration. The citation further required the respondent to show cause, if any, as to why the grant should not be issued to the applicant.

[8] The respondent entered an appearance in response to the citation. Subsequently, the respondent filed an affidavit opposing the applicant's appointment as administrator of the deceased's estate.

[9] In his affidavit, the respondent alleged that the applicant had failed to disclose material information pertaining to prior legal proceedings. Specifically, the respondent asserted that the applicant had filed a citation in a separate matter, namely in Originating Summons No WA-32NCvC-17-01/2019 ("OS No 17"). That proceeding concerned the probate of the Will of Puah Choo, the mother of both the deceased and the parties in the present application. The respondent contended that the applicant's omission to disclose this fact was material.

[10] The respondent further alleged that on 18 July 2023, eleven days prior to the deceased's passing, the applicant together with his son, Yap Chin Ket, had orchestrated the transfer of a property held under Grant No GM 293, Lot No. 491, Mukim Bestari Jaya, Bukit Badong, Kuala Selangor ("Property"). The respondent contended that the Property was lawfully owned by the deceased at the material time. It was further alleged that the transfer of the Property to Yap Chin Ket was executed through fraudulent means and deceptive conduct.

[11] T