The court determined that a statutory nomination under the Employees Provident Fund Act is invalidated by a subsequent nomination, which does not operate as a will and cannot be contested on grounds of fraud unless the proper actions are taken.

[1] Enclosure 1 is the Plaintiffs' Originating Summons ("OS") seeking the following reliefs:

"1) satu deklarasi bahawa borang penamaan bertarikh 9 Mac 2003 yang memihak kepada Plaintif-Plaintif adalah sah dan dengan demikian, wang Paribalan yang dipegang oleh Defendan Ketiga hendaklah menjadi sebahagian daripada harta pusaka Paribalan yang mana Plaintif-Plaintif merupakan waris / benefisiari yang sah di sisi undang-undang;

2) sekiranya pencalonan yang dibuat bertarikh 26 April 2008 memihak kepada Defendan Pertama dan Kedua menjadi sah dan menggantikan pencalonan yang dibuat memihak kepada saya iaitu pada 9 Mac 2003, satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Kedua memegang wang si mati sebagai amanah untuk kanak-kanak yang menjadi sebahagian daripada harta pusaka mendiang Paribalan;

3) dan sekiranya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa borang penamaan bertarikh 9 Mac 2003 adalah sah, maka satu Perintah bahawa Defendan Ketiga membayar wang yang disimpan dengan mereka pada Plaintif-Plaintif dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari daripada tarikh Perintah ini untuk kepentingan kanak-kanak mendiang Paribalan a/l Chinniah;

4) satu deklarasi bahawa wang simpanan mendiang Paribalan a/l Chinniah yang masih di simpanan Defendan Ketiga, ia adalah harta pusaka mendiang Paribalan a/l Chinniah;

5) sekiranya deklarasi di perenggan 4 dibenarkan, satu Perintah bahawa wang caruman dalam Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja bagi Paribalan a/l Chinniah (simati) (No Ahli: 5066453), diberikan kepada Plaintif Pertama sebagai ibu yang sah bagi Plaintif Kedua sebagai pentadbir kanak-kanak tersebut;

6) kos atas dasar peguamcara-anak guam; dan

7) Perintah lain atau selanjutnya dianggap sesuai dan munasabah diberikan oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini.".

Brief Facts

[2] The 1st Plaintiff is the mother of the two children, Tineswaran a/l Paribalan and Thevaraj a/l Paribalan, ages 15 and 12 respectively ("the two children").

[3] The 1st Plaintiff was married to Paribalan a/l Chinniah ("the Deceased"). They had two children from their marriage, but were subsequently divorced on 4 July 2007.

[4] The Deceased, in his lifetime, made two nominations regarding the nominee for his monies left in the Employees Provident Fund ("the EPF"):

1. the nomination dated 9 March 2003 ("the 1st nomination") where the Deceased nominated the 1st Plaintiff as his nominee or beneficiary for his EPF savings with the 3rd Defendant; and

2. the nomination dated 24 June 2006 ("the 2nd nomination") where he nominated his two sisters ie the 1st and 2nd Defendants as his nominees or beneficiaries for his EPF savings with the 3rd Defendant.

[5] The 1st Plaintiff alleged that the 1st and 2nd Defendants attempted withdrawal of the Deceased's EPF savings with the 3rd Defendant.

[6] The 1st Plaintiff is contending that the 2nd nomination in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants appear defective and invalid due to fraud or forgery regarding the thumbprint of the Deceased in the nomination form.

[7] The 1st Plaintiff further contends that the 1st nomination made in her favour remains valid and it was not revoked or cancelled by the Deceased or the 3rd Defendant, and the monies of the Deceased in the EPF rightfully belong to her and the two children.

Issue

[8] The issue is whether the 1st nomination or the 2nd nomination of the Deceased is valid. In considering this issue, the Court has to determine whether the 1st nomination has been revoked or cancelled by the Deceased, and has been superseded by the 2nd nomination.

Decision

[9] On 23 October 2012 I dismissed the Plaintiffs' Application in enclosure 1 and ordered that the 1st Plaintiff pays costs of RM2,500.00 to each of the three Defendants forthwith.