2012 MarsdenLR 216
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK BINTULU
REMA SIMBAN – Appellant
Versus
BUJANG JUHAILI & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: BTU-22-3-2011]
The civil court lacks jurisdiction over inheritance claims concerning Muslim estates, which must be adjudicated by the Shariah High Court, as outlined in Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Rules of the High Court 1980 - Order 14A, Order 18 r 19(1), Order 92 r 4 - Jurisdiction - The court lacks jurisdiction to determine inheritance claims involving a deceased Muslim estate, which fall under the Shariah High Court's jurisdiction as per Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiff, claiming inheritance rights, has to establish herself as a beneficiary per Shariah law; hence, her suit is struck out as an abuse of process. (Paras 4, 50, 51)
(B) Jurisdiction - The question presented was whether the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the civil court or Shariah court, focusing on whether a claim for inheritance by a Muslim requires adjudication by the latter due to legal provisions. The court concluded that only the Shariah court could address beneficiary entitlements and distribution of a deceased Muslim's estate. (Paras 18, 26, 30)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of inheritance claim (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
Ruling
Application
[1] The defendants are applying for striking out under O 14A, O 18 r 19(1) and O 92 r 4 of the RHC 1980 of the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff, a Muslim is claiming by this suit in this court for an inheritance and administration of the estate of a deceased who is a Muslim. The estate is being administered by the first defendant, another Muslim under letters of administration for an intestate granted under civil law. The rest of the reliefs being claimed in this suit include those against a non-Muslim, the second defendant who had taken charges on the two parcels of land of the estate.
[2] The defendants pose this question of law under O 14A of the RHC 1980 for the court's decision: 1 MLJ 127 at 133
[3] Whether the matters in issue are within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.
Upon reading:
(a) Re-amended writ of summons and statement of claim;
(b) The second defendant's defence;
(c) The first defendant's defence;
(d) Reply to the first defendant's defence;
(e) The defendants' summons in chambers dated 28 February 2012 ('application');
(f) The first defendant's affidavit in support affirmed on 28 February 2012 ('support affidavit 1');
(g) The second defendant's affidavit in support affirmed on 28 February 2012 ('support affidavit 2');
and
(h) The plaintiff's affidavit in opposition affirmed on 16 March 2012 (opposing affidavit;
And upon reading:
(a) The defendants' submission;
(b) The plaintiff's submission; and
(c) The defendants' reply submission;
The court finds as follows:
The Facts Of Case
[4] The late Simban b Endang ('deceased') who had died intestate in August 1959 was a Muslim before and up to his death.
[5] The estate of the deceased ('estate') comprised, inter alia, of:
(a) Lot 801 Block 8 Selezu Land District with an area of 2.85500 hectares more or less and situate at Sungai Selezu, Sebuah; and
(b) Lot 803 Block 8 Selezu Land District with an area of 4,860 square metres more or less and situate at Sungai Selezu, Sebuah. (Individually, 'Lot 801' and 'Lot 803' collectively the 'lands')
[6] The plaintiff who is also a Muslim claims to be the heir and beneficiary of the estate and as beneficiary is claiming to be entitled to inherit the lands from the estate.
[7] The first defendant another Muslim also claims to have rights to inherit from the estate had been appointed as the administrator of the estate by obtaining the grant of the letters of administration from the probate office on the 5 August 2009.
[8] The first defendant had then transferred the lands to himself vide application for transmission instrument NL308/2009 at the Bintulu Land Registry Office on 23 November 2009.
[9] The first defendant had in early 2010 charged the lands to the second defendant vide memoranda of charge instruments Nos L308/2010 and L1423/2010 to secure sums for his own benefit and use 86 ('charges).
[10] In 17 August 2010, 219.5 square metres of Lot 801 was compulsorily acquired and resumed vide instrument No L4181/2010 by the State Government with compensation paid to the first defendant.