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

2025 MarsdenLR 2586

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MARZAIDI MOHAMMAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMED AFFENDI KHAIRUDDIN AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: W-02(NCvC)(W)-1092-07-2023 & W-02(NCvC)(W)-1122-07-2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Norazali Nordin,Fey Aqis Mohd Khairuddin,Lailatul Fitriah Ma'at ,Respondent Advocate: GK Ganesan,Brijnandan Singh Bhar,Natasha Bhar,Jasween Kaur Dhaliwal,PavaaniTanggaveloo

Estate claims must be pursued by designated executors for rightful heirs; improper claims by heirs are void if not in accordance with statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act 1956 - Sections 7(1) and 7(2) - Claim for wrongful death - Defendant filed in personal capacity instead of as executor - Action improperly brought, as estate's legal heirs not included - Plaintiffs' claim for distribution under Faraid Order recognized - Dismissal of claim challenged - Court found procedural error and ordered distribution of Goodwill Payment (Paras 10, 11, 65, 92, 115).

(B) Release Agreement - Validity affirmed, parties recognized as Releasors entitled to Goodwill Payment - Stakeholder Agreement terms not violated, action allowed (Paras 22, 28, 88).

(C) Jurisdiction - Civil court's jurisdiction affirmed regarding claims for distribution based on Faraid Order and Stakeholder Agreement (Paras 44, 90).

Facts of the case:
The deceased was a crew member on flight MH17, with legal heirs including husband and child. Following her death, a Faraid Order was issued for property distribution. A civil action was improperly filed by the husband in his capacity instead of as executor, prompting intervention by other heirs.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found errors in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim based on supposed relinquishment of rights and affirmed the plaintiffs’ entitlement under the Faraid Order, ordering distribution of funds (Paras 92, 116).

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant, their supposed relinquishment of rights, and the jurisdiction of civil courts concerning estate distribution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the plaintiffs did not relinquish rights to Goodwill Payment and the High Court has jurisdiction to declare distribution per Faraid Order, emphasizing the improper nature of the husband's original filing (Paras 65, 88, 90).

Result: Appeals allowed; original dismissal set aside, and order made for distribution of funds.

Table of Content
1. background of the deceased and her heirs (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. faraid order and legal action intentions (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. procedural errors in initiating civil suit (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
4. defendant's denial and appeal process (Para 13 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. stakeholder agreement for distribution of settlement (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. release agreement and claims acknowledgment (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. suit 629 and claims for distribution of goodwill payment (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. counterclaims and appeals against procedural decisions (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
9. high court's jurisdiction over claims under faraid (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
10. conclusion and ordering reliefs for plaintiffs (Para 91 , 92 , 93)
JUDGMENT

Faizah Jamaludin JCA:

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] The late Mastura binti Mustafa (the "Deceased") was one of the crew members of the ill-fated flight MH17, operated by Malaysia Airlines System Berhad ("Malaysia Airlines"), which crashed near Hrabove in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine on 17 July 2014.

[2] Flight MH17 was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport, Netherlands, to Kuala Lumpur International Airport. The aircraft was shot down by a surface-to-air missile when it was flying over Eastern Ukraine. All the passengers and crew on board the flight perished in the crash.

[3] At the time of her death, the Deceased left the following legal heirs:

(i) Mohamed Affendi bin Khairuddin ("the defendant") - her husband;

(ii) Muhammad Muhriz bin Marzaidi ("the Child") - her only child from her marriage to her ex-husband, Marzaidi bin Mohammad ("the 1st plaintiff "); and

(iii) Mustafa bin Ab Samad ("Mustafa") - her father.

[4] The Deceased was the defendant's second wife. They were married in Songkhla, Thailand, on 25 June 2013, approximately one year prior to her death. Their marriage was registered on 10 March 2014 under the Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan 1984 pursuant to an Order of the Syariah High Court of Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan.

[5] At the time of the Deceased's death, the Child was 10 years old, and Mustafa was 82 years old.

Faraid Order

[6] Following the Deceased's death, the defendant filed for and obtained a Faraid Order (Perintah Faraid) on 5 February 2015 from the Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court for the division of the Deceased's property among her legal heirs. Under the Faraid Order, the Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court ordered that the Deceased's estate be distributed among her legal heirs in the following proportions:

[7] On 9 February 2015, the 1st plaintiff was appointed as the guardian to the Child's assets (penjaga kepada harta-harta yang dimiliki oleh anak yang bernama Muhammad Muhriz bin Marzaidi) pursuant to an Order of the Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court.

[8] The defendant's solicitors, Messrs Brijnandan Singh Bhar & Co ("Messrs Brijnandan"), in a letter dated 28 July 2015 addressed to Mustafa, enquired whether the Deceased's family members intend to bring legal action against Malaysia Airlines for her death. Mustafa's former solicitors, Messrs Mohd Khairul Masni & Associates, through a letter dated 17 August 2015, replied, inter alia, that the Deceased's family did not want to be involved in the defendant's civil suit against Malaysia Airlines.

Suit 435

[9] The defendant then filed a civil action on 15 July 2016 under the Montreal Convention 1999 ("Montreal Convention") and the Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 1967) (" CLA 1956") against Malaysia Airlines System Berhad (Administrator Appointed) and Malaysia Airlines Berhad for causing the death or wrongful death of the Deceased in Civil Suit No: WA-22CNCVC-435-07/2016 ("Suit 435") at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

[10] Section 7 (2) of the CLA 1956 (as at the date of filing of Suit 435 ie prior to the amendment by the Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2019, which came into force on 1 September 2019) states that an action for the wrongful death of a person shall be b

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