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 person