Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2315
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KONG KIN LAY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
KONG KIN SIONG & ORS AND OTHER CASES – Respondent
[Civil Suit No:: WA-22NCVC-494-09-2017 WA-22NCVC-402-08-2017 WA-23NCVC-1019-06-2017]
The court affirmed that testamentary capacity requires only slight capacity, and allegations of undue influence must be substantiated by clear evidence, which the plaintiffs failed to provide.
Headnote:(A) Wills Act 1959 - Testamentary capacity - The court addressed the validity of a will executed by a deceased who, at the time, was 97 years old and allegedly lacked testamentary capacity due to advanced age and health issues. The plaintiffs contended that the deceased was unduly influenced by certain heirs, claiming that the will diverged significantly from a prior will executed in 2002. The court found that the deceased possessed testamentary capacity and understood the contents of the 2014 Will, dismissing the claims of undue influence and suspicious circumstances. (Paras 34-154)
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 159 and 160 - The court discussed the admissibility of oral evidence and the ability of witnesses to refresh their memory with documents not previously admitted, emphasizing that the purpose is to assist in providing accurate testimony. (Paras 17-30)
(C) Undue influence - The court ruled that mere allegations of influence without substantial evidence do not suffice to invalidate a will, noting that the plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence of undue influence or suspicious circumstances. (Paras 111-138)
(D) Costs - The court ordered costs to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, emphasizing the importance of the validity of the will and the proper administration of the estate. (Paras 154-156)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. claims made by the plaintiffs regarding the 2014 will. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's analysis on the testamentary capacity of the deceased. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 4. examination of suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100) |
| 5. determination of the validity of the 2014 will. (Para 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147) |
| 6. final conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155) |
Introduction
[1] Kong Siew Tong ("the Deceased") passed away shortly after celebrating his 100th birthday (in accordance with the Chinese lunar calendar). While it is Chinese custom that the passing of a deceased person in such a blessed long life is to be celebrated, what transpired after that had nothing to be cherished: his children and heirs were divided, and dramatic events started unfolding in their rat race for the fortune he had left behind. 3 separate actions were filed with regard to the Deceased's estate ("the said Estate"). These 3 actions were later ordered to be consolidated and be heard together before me ("this Matter" or "this Action"). The main dispute was concerning a will executed by the Deceased in 2014 ("the 2014 Will"). (Parties will be referred to as their capacities in Suit No WA-22NCvC-494-09/2017 ("Suit 494")) As in the usual family feud over distribution of the estate, one group of the heirs ("the Plaintiffs") were not satisfied with the distribution stated in the 2014 Will. The Plaintiffs had alleged that the biggest gainers under the 2014 Will ("the Defendants") had conspired among themselves and had unduely influenced the Deceased in his execution of the 2014 Will. They had also questioned numerous other aspects of the 2014 Will. After the trial conducted and after the outcomes of this Matter, the losing parties who were dissatisfied with my decision, obviously due to the millions of Ringgit Malaysia involved in it, had since appealed to the Court of Appeal. This is my judgment and findings concerning this Matter and as to my reasons for such findings.
The Dispute
[2] The Deceased was a successful businessman who lived and passed on as a centenarian. During the course of his life up to his passing, the Deceased founded and managed several businesses. This eventually formed a wealthy estate comprising of several plots of land and real estate properties, and other assets including stocks and shares, and cash.
[3] The Deceased married twice (in Malaysia and in China) and from those unions, had sired 13 children before his eventual passing on 22 March 2017. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are all his children and grandchildren (namely his heirs).
[4] The dispute arose on 16 June 2017 when the 1st defendant filed an application through an originating summons No WA-23NCvC-1019-06/2017 ("Suit 1019") for the issuance of a grant of probate based on the 2014 Will. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are all beneficiaries of the 2014 Will.
[5] The Plaintiffs challenged this application and claimed that the Deceased did not have the testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the 2014 Will.
[6] The Plaintiff also claimed that they never knew of the existence of the 2014 Will. It was further disputed that the Deceased only wrote a will circa 2002 ("the 2002 Will"). Further, the Plaintiffs claimed that the 2002 Will represented the 'true intention' of the Deceased on the distribution of assets and that the 2014 Will had diverged greatly from the contents of the 2002 Will.
[7] The Plaintiffs also claimed the
