SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 1483

HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK FEDERAL TERRITORY LABUAN
DALJINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
AMARDEEP SINGH DALJINDER SINGH; SHARANDEEP SINGH DALJINDER SINGH (INTERVENER) – Respondent
[Petition No: LBN-31NCVC-9-10-2016]



Petitioner Advocates:Ryan Soo ,Respondent Advocate: Ashraaf Danial Zakaria

The applicant's demonstrated ongoing failures and self-dealings provide sufficient cause for the court to appoint him as the administrator of the deceased's estate over his son, who failed to perform his statutory duties.

Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 109 of Sabah) – Sections 89, 90, and 101 – Applications for removal and replacement of an administrator of the estate of the deceased – Court allowed the application of the husband to be appointed as administrator due to the respondent's failure to diligently perform duties and ongoing self-dealing practices – The respondent's excuse of delays due to COVID-19 was not a valid justification considering prior established inaction – Sufficient cause established for the appointment of the husband as administrator over his son, the respondent. (Paras 1-5, 78-96)

(B) Statutory obligations and fiduciary duties of administrators – Administrator must comply with requirements to report and distribute assets as outlined in Ordinance – Failure to comply constitutes grounds for removal and replacement. (Paras 66-94)

JUDGMENT

Leonard David Shim JC:

[1] There are two applications made under ss 89 and 90 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 109 of Sabah) before this court to replace the respondent as the administrator of the estate of the late Mdm Prasan Kaur Santokh Singh (the deceased). Notice of Motion dated 2 July 2020 (encl 37) is filed by the applicant and Notice of Motion dated 6 November 2020 (encl 66) is filed by the Intervener. As both applications are intertwined, this court directed both applications to be heard together at the same hearing. On 3 August 2021, after hearing the submissions from both parties, this court allowed encl 37 and disallowed encl 66 with no order as to costs. I now give my grounds of decision for encl 37 and encl 66 respectively.

[2] Enclosure 37 is an application by the applicant for the following orders:

(1) The respondent be suspended, removed and discharged as the administrator of the estate of the deceased;

(2) The respondent be ordered to deliver up all cash, access, chattels, items, properties and documents in connection with the estate of the deceased within two weeks of this Order to the applicant's solicitors;

(3) The administration of all the chattels, movable and immovable properties which by law devolved to and vested in the personal representative of the late Prasan Kaur Santokh Singh be granted to Daljinder Singh as the Administrator of the said intestate; and

(4) Any further relief that this Honourable court deems fit.

[3] Enclosure 66 is an application by the Intervener for the following orders:

(i) that the respondent be suspended, removed and discharged as the Administrator of the estate of the deceased;

(ii) that the Intervener be appointed as Administrator of the estate of the deceased in place of the respondent;

(iii) that the respondent be ordered to deliver up all cash, access, chattels, items, properties and documents in connection with the estate of the deceased within two weeks of this Order to the Intervener's solicitors;

(iv) The administration of all the chattels, movable and immovable properties which by law devolved to and vested in the personal representative of the late Prasan Kaur Santokh Singh be granted to Sharandeep Singh Daljinder Singh as the Administrator of the said intestate; and

(v) Any further relief that this Honourable court deems fit.

Contention Of The Parties

[4] The application under the Notice of Motion (encl 37) is essentially for the applicant (the husband) to be appointed as administrator of the estate of his late wife, Mdm Prasan Kaur Santokh Singh, replacing his son Amardeep Singh (the respondent). The respondent and the Intervener are siblings. These are the main grounds which the applicant contends would show conclusively that the respondent had failed to carry out his duties diligently and faithfully:

(a) The respondent obtained the Grant of Letter of Administration dated 18 November 2016 but had failed to carry out his duties as the administrator in accordance with the Probate and Administration Ordinance ;

(b) Despite the court Order dated 5 November 2019 compelling the respondent to complete the distribution of the assets within six months, the respondent has failed to comply with the said court Order; and

(c) There are multiple transactions showing self-dealings where the respondent had benefited from the estate personally, a gross violation of his duties as a faithful administrator to the estate.

[5] Another beneficiary, Ms Amandeep Kaur Daljinder Singh who is the daughter of the applicant and sister of the respondent and the Intervener has filed an affidavit (encl 42) in further support of this Notice of Motion (encl 37).

The Respondent Has Failed In His Duties AS Administrator

[6] It is undisputed that the respondent has applied for and obtained the Grant of Letter of Administration on 18 November 2016 (encl 12). For ease of reference, the Grant of Letter of Administration dated 18 November 2016 (encl 12) is attached herein and marked as "Annexure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top