Amendments to pleadings must be made in good faith and not as tactical maneuvers; otherwise, they will be dismissed.

Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] "An amendment may wear the cloak of merit, but if sowed in bad faith and lined with procedural abuse, it cannot pass the threshold of amendment requirement". This application by the plaintiff, seeking to amend his Writ and Statement of Claim (in encl 71) pursuant to O 20 r 5 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, raises a fundamental question of whether the Court should allow an amendment that appears, on the face of it, meritorious, but is in reality, tainted with bad faith, procedural abuse and derail the proceedings

Background facts

[2] The plaintiff filed a claim alleging fraudulent and negligent acts by the defendants in probating a Will and administering the estate of the plaintiff's late brother, Dato' Anthony Kevin Morais. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have tricked the Court into approving a 2005 Will, which the plaintiff claims is suspicious. The plaintiff contends that the defendants had coerced him into affirming a false affidavit to support their actions in making an application to replace the original Will and eventually obtaining the Grant of Probate. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have misrepresented material facts and acted recklessly in administering the estate, causing harm to the plaintiff and the interests of other beneficiaries.

[3] Whilst the plaintiff's objection to the defendants' administration of the estate is said to be in the interest of the estate, he objected to one of his brothers, Charles Suresh Morais, a rightful beneficiary, intervening in the case. This raises questions about whether the plaintiff is actually motivated by personal gain when other beneficiaries support the defendants.

[4] However, after filing the suit, the plaintiff filed an amendment application, where he tried to bring up a new Will dated 2015 (2nd Will), executed in the United Kingdom, claiming that it supersedes the 2005 Will (the Impugned Will). The defendants strongly oppose this application, contending that it is a deliberate afterthought to frustrate the defendants' application to strike out the claim, which was filed earlier. The defendants contend that the plaintiff already knew about the 2015 Will back in 2015, but did not act to do the needful until later. The key issue is whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff is truly in pursuit of justice, or is just an attempt to suit his own interests.

Plaintiff's case

[5] The plaintiff submits the amendment of the Writ and Statement of Claim ['SOC'] to include two key facts:

a) the discovery of a 2nd Will dated 13 August 2015, which revokes the previously Will (2005 Will); and

b) the need to add new defendants to the case. The plaintiff contends that the defendants fraudulently concealed the existence of the 2nd Will while obtaining a Grant of Probate using a photocopy of the 2005 Will.

The amendments according to the plaintiff are necessary in the interest of justice and the amendment does not change the nature and character of the plaintiff's case and does not prejudice the defendants.

[6] The defendants together argue that the plaintiff's application (Enclosure 71) to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim ought to be dismissed for multiple reasons, primarily because it is made in bad faith, that it fundamentally changes the character of the case, it is an abuse of Court process and it is prejudicial to the defendants.

[7] Firstly, the defendants assert that the plaintiff's claim of discovering the 2nd Will dated 13 August 2015, only in August 2024 is a false claim. The defendants provide documentary evidence, including letters from 2015, showing that the plaintiff was aware of the 2nd Will's existence and that it is not valid. They contend that the plaintiff knew of it nearly a decade earlier. The defendants contend that this constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead the Court. The delay in raising this claim, coupled with the plaintiff's previous actions, the defendants contend they