(delivering the Judgment of the Court): Lugito Surjo Kusno was a very wealthy Indonesian. He died in Indonesia on November 21, 1978 and at the date of his death was domiciled in Indonesia. He left behind eight children — three children by one Wong Tjow Moei ("Madam Wong"), who are the abovenamed respondents and five children by Lily Iskandar, the 1st appellant abovenamed and the 2nd appellant abovenamed is one of the five children. Madam Wong predeceased Lugito Surjo Kusno ("the deceased"); she died on May 8, 1976. The 1st appellant died on September 17, 1983 after the present proceedings had commenced.

Prior to his death, the deceased on November 27, 1975 made a will ("the will") in Singapore. The will was prepared by Mr. Lui Boon Poh, an advocate and solicitor, and was executed by the deceased and his execution was duly witnessed by Mr. Lui and his legal assistant Miss Ivy Neo Soh Bee, both of whom signed the same as witnesses. By the will the deceased appointed the appellants executors and trustees thereof and disposed of his whole estate, both movable and immovable, to the 1st appellant and her children to the entire exclusion of the respondents.

Soon after the death of the deceased, proceedings were commenced in Indonesia by the 1st appellant and her children and also by the respondents, and subsequently the issues were joined. A helpful summary of the various stages of the legal proceedings in Indonesia has been given by Chua J. in his judgment, and it is unnecessary for us to repeat them. Suffice here to say that the matters in dispute between them reached the Supreme Court of Indonesia which gave its judgment in June 1981.

In Singapore, the appellants on December 28, 1978 filed a petition praying for probate of the will in Probate No. 1474 of 1978. On January 18, 1979 the respondents filed a caveat against the grant of probate. Thereupon, on April 10, 1979 the appellants instituted the present proceedings against the respondents seeking for probate of the will. The claim was resisted by the respondents and their defence is briefly as follows:

(a) At the time of execution of the will the deceased was an Indonesian and was domiciled in Indonesia and at the date of his death he was still an Indonesian and domiciled in Indonesia. The will as executed by the deceased contravened the laws of Indonesia, being the country of his domicile, and was therefore invalid.

(b) The 1st appellant, an Indonesian was domiciled in Indonesia and was not lawfully married to the deceased in that, at the time the 1st appellant cohabited with the deceased, he was lawfully married to Madam Wong and the deceased could not lawfully marry the 1st appellant under Indonesian law. Consequently, under Indonesian law all the five children of the 1st appellant were not entitled to inherit any property of the deceased.

The appellants joined issued with the respondents.

It is not in dispute that under Indonesian law a legitimate or legitimated child of a deceased person is entitled to a specified portion of the deceased's estate as of right, notwithstanding any testamentary dispositions that may have been made by the deceased. In the instant case, however, under the laws of Singapore the immovable estate of the deceased in Singapore devolves according to the laws of Singapore but the movable estate of the deceased devolves according to the laws of Indonesia, being the lex domicilli of the deceased. Hence, if the respondents succeed in establishing their legitimacy under Indonesian law they would be entitled thereunder to one-quarter share each of the movable estate, notwithstanding that no provision was made for them in the will.

The case came on for hearing before Chua J. on April 13, 1981. As of that date proceedings were well under way in the Indonesian Courts and at the hearing counsel for the appellants and respondents agreed on the following:

(a) The court should decide to what extent, if at all, the appellants should be granted probate of th