Procedural non-compliance does not justify striking out a citation; merits of the claim should be addressed in a separate Writ Action.

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin JC:

Introduction

[1] The Applicant Ong Soo Kwee (Citee) is one of the executors of the estate of Loh Ah Moy @ Loh Siew Keng who passed away on 25 March 2001.

[2] The Respondents, Ong Soo Kan, Ong Soo Kit, Khong Kok Yew, Khong Kok Yun and Khong Kok Yau (Citors) are some of the beneficiaries of the estate of Loh Ah Moy.

[3] The Citors are unhappy with the administration of the Estate and alleges, among others, that the Citee is acting in conflict with his duties as the Executor of the estate and his personal interest. These allegations appear in the Affidavit in Support filed by Khong Kok Yun filed in support of the Citors' application to issue the citation.

[4] The applicant seeks to strike out the citation obtained by the Citors.

Decision Of This Court

[5] The Citee argues that the Citation obtained by the Citors are invalid on the following grounds:

(i) All of the executors / trustees were not named in the Citation.

(ii) The Citee is not in possession of the Grant of Probate.

(iii) Non-Disclosure of Material Facts by the Citors.

(iv) The Citors failed to comply with the procedural requirements of O 72 r 8 Rules of 2012.

[6] I have considered the arguments raised by the Citors and I am of the opinion that the allegations raised by him do not warrant the striking out of the Citation issued by Court pursuant to O 72 r 7 of the Rules of 2012.

[7] I will deal with each of the arguments raised by the Citors in the following paragraphs.

(i) All Of The Executors / Trustees Were Not Named In The Citation

[8] The surviving Executors to the said estate are Ong Soo Kwee and Ong Ghee Soon.

[9] The Citee argues that as he was the sole person named in the Citation, the said document is invalid. Counsel representing the Citee argues that all of the Executors must be named and failure to name the other surviving Executor renders the whole process invalid.

[10] However, this allegation is contrary to the Citee's own affidavit. When I peruse his affidavit in support of the application to strike out the Citation he had declared that:-

"1. Saya adalah wasi tunggal yang masih hidup / pemegang- pemegang Amanah Bersama Estet Loh Ah Moy".

[11] Therefore, this allegation is baseless. Being the sole Executor of the estate of Loh Ah Moy, the citors are entitled to institute citation proceedings against him.

[12] As the sole surviving Executor, the Citation should be issued in his own name. I refer to s 14 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 .

(ii) The Citee Is Not In Possession Of The Grant Of Probate

[13] The second issue raised by the Citee concerns his allegation that he does not hold the Grant of Probate and the said document is held by the solicitors of the estate, Messrs Benjamin Yean & Co

[14] His counsel therefore argues that as the order of citation requires the said document to be produced within fourteen (14) days from the date of the order into Court, there is a clear danger that his client may be subject to contempt.

[15] I have taken note the concern raised by the Citee's counsel and agree that he should be given time to obtain the document. This was not objected to by the counsel for the Citors.

[16] This argument however does not justify that the Citation be struck out by Court. This only entitles him to an extension of time to obtain the document and file it in Court pursuant to the Rules.

[17] Therefore, I grant him sixty (60) days to obtain such instrument to enable him to comply with the order of Court as contained in the Citation.

(iii) Non-Disclosure Of Material Facts By The Citors

(iv) The Citors Failed To Comply With The Procedural Requirements Of Order 72 Rule 8

[18] As the above issues overlap, I will deal with them together in the following paragraphs.

[19] Counsel for the Citee argues that there has been non-compliance with O 72 r 8 as the Citors had apparently failed to provide the particulars of the claim and that they had chosen not to disclose all material facts before this Court.

[20] Counsel for the Citee arg