Advocates:
For the appellant - K Maniam; M/s Skrine & Co
For the respondents - Francis Tan; M/s Rosni, Francis Tan & Ho

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA

APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT IPOH

JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER IN CHAMBERS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(NCVC)-[NUMBER]-2024

BETWEEN

YAP TECK NGIAN
(Administrator of the Estate of Yap Hong Kai, Deceased)
... APPELLANT

AND

(1) YAP [NAME OF FIRST CITATOR]
(2) YAP [NAME OF SECOND CITATOR]
(Siblings of Yap Hong Kai, Deceased)
... RESPONDENTS*

---

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Decision of the Judicial Commissioner in Chambers of the High Court of Malaya at Ipoh dated [DATE OF JUDGMENT] whereby the appeal against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar dated 19 February 2001 (!) (!) (!) was dismissed with costs (!) , hereby appeals to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in the Memorandum of Appeal served herewith and seeks the following orders:

1. That the Decision of the Judicial Commissioner dated [DATE] be set aside.

2. That the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar dated 19 February 2001 dismissing the application to set aside and cancel the citation dated 29 November 2000 (!) (!) (!) be set aside.

3. That the citation dated 29 November 2000 issued under O. 72 rr. 7 and 8 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 be set aside and cancelled.

4. Costs of the application below and of this appeal to the Appellant.

5. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

DATED this [DAY] day of [MONTH], 2024.

[LAWYER'S FIRM]
Solicitors for the Appellant
[Address]
[Contact Details]

To:
The Registrar
Court of Appeal
Putrajaya

AND TO:
Solicitors for the Respondents
[Details if known]

---

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

The Appellant appeals on the following grounds:

Ground 1
The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law in holding that a citation under O. 72 r. 7 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 to bring in a grant of administration is merely a precondition to a subsequent revocation action by writ under O. 72 rr. 1(2), 2(1) and 2(3), such that the merits of revocation need not be assessed at the citation stage and only an affidavit verifying facts per O. 72 r. 8(2) is required (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The Respondents failed to disclose any valid grounds for revocation of the grant, which are limited to invalid wills, later wills, post-will marriage, or grants to non-entitled persons (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 2
The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law in holding that O. 71, which governs non-contentious probate business including caveats under r. 41(3), does not apply to citations under O. 72 r. 7 in contentious probate actions for revocation of grants, such that no caveat is required prior to issuing such a citation under O. 72 rr. 7 and 8 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . A caveat was required under O. 71 r. 41 before issuance of the citation, which was not entered, rendering the procedure irregular (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 3
The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in law in holding that an application for a citation under O. 72 r. 7 to bring in a grant is made ex parte by affidavit in accordance with O. 72 r. 8 and sealed by a registry officer, without the need for a summons in Form 62 or any other originating process prior to commencement of the action by writ (!) (!) (!) . The application for citation required a summons in Form 62 as an originating process, which was not filed, rendering the citation irregularly issued (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 4
The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in fact and in law in failing to consider that unreplied allegations in the affidavits must be deemed accepted, including the absence of valid grounds for revocation and procedural irregularities (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 5
The learned Judicial Commissioner erred in upholding the citation despite the Respondents' failure to demonstrate any interest entitling them to seek revocation, given the unadministered estate context and defects alleged without merit (!) (!) .

The Appellant seeks leave to raise any other grounds or arguments at the hearing of the appeal.

DATED this [DAY] day of [MONTH], 2024.

[LAWYER'S FIRM]
Solicitors for the Appellant