Jurisdiction to revoke Letters of Administration lies with the Probate Officer, and requests void of due legal process cannot be entertained by the courts.

[1] By this Originating Summons dated 21 October 2022 herein (Encl 1), the Plaintiff is applying for the following orders against the Defendants:

(1) That the Letter of Administration affecting the estate of the late Ngipa Anak Singut (the Deceased) under application for probate matter No.SBU/126/2020B Vol.100 Folio.43 (the said Letters of Administration) granted to the 1st Defendant be cancelled and hereby revoked;

(2) That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are deemed to have granted necessary consent to the Plaintiff to apply to be the administratrix of the estate of the Deceased; and

(3) That if the Plaintiff is appointed as the administratrix of the estate of the Deceased, the Plaintiff may dispose of any estate of the Deceased with the proceed of sale be distributed in accordance with law after deducting the reasonable expenses that may be incurred.

[2] The Defendants took out a Notice of Application dated 1 March 2023 (Encl 8) to strike out the Plaintiff's Originating Summons herein and the Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support affirmed on 19 October 2022 (Encl 2) under O 18 r 19(1)(a) or (b) or (d) Rules of 2012 and inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the grounds that:

(a). The Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support was defective being without jurat;

(b). The Plaintiff did not plead her entitlement to the estate of the Deceased;

(c). The Probate Officer, Sibu was not a party to the suit; and

(d). The matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Native Court.

[3] These are matters that the Defendants have could raise and deal with in the substantive hearing of the Plaintiff's application in the Originating Summons. It is wholly unnecessary that these issues as raised by the Defendants' application to strike out should be dealt with separately. It increased costs and delayed the disposal of the suit.

See: RMA And Another v. Director Of Immigration [2018] HKCU 976; and AA And Another v. The Securities And Futures Commission [2016] HKCU 1856.

[4] The Court therefore, directed that the matters forming the basis of the Defendants' striking out application be heard at the same time as the Plaintiff's substantive application in the Originating Summons herein.

[5] By the written submission of the counsel for the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Encl 12), the Plaintiff conceded that there was a lack of certification in the jurat for the Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support (Encl 2) as required under O 41 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 as the Plaintiff who affirmed the same by thumb print indicating that she is illiterate.

[6] There are no materials presented to satisfy the Court that it was read to and appeared to be perfectly understood by the Plaintiff as the deponent thereto. The Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support (Encl 2) therefore should not be used and is rejected.

See: Malaysian Civil Procedure Volume I - 2021 Edition, paras 41/3 to 41/3/8

[7] However, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is relying on the matters as deposed to in the Affidavit in Opposition jointly affirmed by the Defendant on 28 February 2023 (Encl 10) which the Plaintiff has not filed any affidavit to controvert.

[8] The counsel for the Plaintiff in his submission also stated that the Plaintiff withdrew prayers (2) and (3) in the Originating Summons, leaving the prayer (1) for an order to cancelled and revoke the said Letters of Administration.

[9] As to the contention of the Defendants in respect of the failure of the Plaintiff to plead her entitlement to the estate of the said deceased and that the matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Native Court, the Plaintiff's applicat