Chang Min Tat J:

See Govindasamy Pilly & Sons Ltd. v. Lok Seng Chai & Ors. [1961] MLJ where this point was raised for consideration]

In this running-down action, the plaintiffs describing themselves in the title to the writ as the administrators of the estate of the deceased victim of the runningdown, claimed general and special damages suffered by the estate of the deceased and by his dependants who were in the indorsement named as Leila Bevi the widow and two infant sons. There was no description in the indorsement of the plaintiffs as such administrators, and there was no averment that the grant of letters of administration, if any, to the plaintiffs had been extracted.

Objection is now taken to the writ after entry of conditional appearance on the contention that it is bad. Reliance is laid by learned Counsel for the defendant on Bowler v. John Mowlem & Co. Ltd. [1954] 1 WLR 1445, CA.

I think that case firstly repeats the proposition that until the grant of letters of administration has been extracted the administrators are not clothed with a capacity to sue, see inter alia, Ingall v. Moran [1944] KB 160 and secondly re-establishes that a widow can sue in her personal rights. In Bowler's case, the fact that the widow was the person suing saved the writ from being struck out.

In this particular case, it was not the widow suing. The writ was taken out by two persons purporting to be administrators and described as such in the title to the writ but there is absent from the indorsement any averment that they had been granted the letters of administration or that they had before the issue of the writ extracted the grant, since even if they had obtained and extracted the grant a short time after the issue of the writ, however short it was, it did not relate back. Consequently in the indorsement of the writ, no capacity to sue was shown.

The objection succeeds. There must be an order setting aside the writ and all subsequent proceedings. The plaintiffs must unfortunately pay the costs.

Order accordingly.