An administrator must obtain Letters of Administration before undertaking estate actions; acts without such a grant are nullities.

[1] In 1966, the appellant Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi's father, one Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi ("the father"), who died on 1 July 1991, started a manufacturing business. The appellant began working for his father in the business at the age of 17 while his brothers, Tilaklal Kantilal Doshi and Jogesh Kantilal Doshi were sent overseas for studies.

[2] The business was incorporated as Overseas Industries Sdn Bhd on 31 December 1969 ("the company"). In 1970, the father caused to be issued 347 shares in the company to the appellant and 500 shares to the appellant's mother, Damayanti Kantilal Doshi ("the mother"). In 1973, the father caused a further 1,128 shares in the company to be transferred from the uncle who was holding it in trust for the appellant's father, to the appellant. In 1987, the father directed the mother's 500 shares to be transferred to himself. Three months before he died he made a will ("the will") as to the disposal of his estate ("the estate").

[3] On 17 August 1991, the Mother and Jogesh Kantilal Doshi as the named executrix and executor under the will, appointed under the will, filed Civil Suit No: 22-195-1991 ("Suit 195") against the appellant for, inter alia, a declaration that the appellant holds the 1,475 shares in the said company in trust for the estate. On 15 October 1991, probate was granted in favour to the executrix and the executor. On 17 September 1994, the appellant filed a notice of motion to revoke the grant of probate to the executrix and the executor. The application was allowed by the High Court on 29 July 1995. That removal of the mother and Jogesh Kantilal Doshi as executrix and executor, and appointment of Amanah Raya Berhad as administrator was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 4 June 1998.

[4] Only on 17 January 2001, nearly two and a half years after the affirmation by the Court of Appeal of the order of the High Court, Amanah Raya Berhad substituted itself as the plaintiff in Suit 195. Having been substituted as the plaintiff in Suit 195, Amanah Raya Berhad agreed to have Suit 195 and three other suits to be heard together. On 21 November 2005, Amanah Raya Berhad amended the writ and statement of claim in Suit 195.

[5] On 29 December 2005, Amanah Raya Berhad initiated Petition 26-13-2005 ("Petition 13") seeking relief under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 . Amanah Raya Berhad amended Petition 13 on 23 February 2006. Petition 13 prompted an application by the appellant to strike out Petition 13. On 28 February 2006, Amanah Raya Berhad agreed with the appellant that Petition 13 be heard together with the other related civil suits.

[6] On 5 February 2008, the appellant filed Originating Summons No: 24-384-2008 to revoke the appointment of Amanah Raya Berhad as administrator of the estate and a private trust company be appointed instead. On 19 March 2008, the appellant filed summons in chambers (encl 194) to strike out Suit 195 on the ground that Amanah Raya Berhad had no locus standi to maintain the suit as Amanah Raya Berhad had neither applied for nor extracted the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate. On 27 March 2008, Amanah Raya Berhad filed an affidavit that they had on 4 January 2008 extracted the grant of probate for the estate. The appellant withdrew the applications.

[7] On 24 June 2008, the appellant filed Originating Summons No: 24-1970-2008 to apply for an order that the grant of probate dated 4 January 2008 to Amanah Raya Berhad be set aside on the ground that the said probate was wrongfully and unlawfully issued. The grant of probate was the subject of an appeal which failed in the Court of Appeal but on further appeal to the Federal Court, was allowed on 19 October 2011 on the ground that Amanah Raya Berhad should have ap