JUDGMENT

Suzana Muhamad Said JC:

(Enclosures 84, 87 & 97)

Introduction

[1] The applications before this Court are:

(a) security for costs (Enclosure 84) filed by the Defendants;

(b) Appointment of the Plaintiff as administrator Pendente Lite for the estate of Kee Soon Ling (Deceased) (Enclosure 87) filed by the Plaintiff; and

(c) Appointment of one "Toh Swee Lin" from SL Toh & Co as administrator Pendente Lite for the estate of the Deceased (Enclosure 97) filed by the Defendants.

[2] This Court allows encls 84 and 97 of the Defendants but dismissed encl 87 of the Plaintiff. The reasons are as deliberated.

Brief Facts

[3] The facts of this Suit are as set out in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (SOC).

[4] The Deceased passed away intestate on 28 October 2022, leaving behind three (3) Beneficiaries, namely, his father Kee Jek Hee, the 1st Defendant (D1), his legal wife, Kok Siew Poh, the 2nd Defendant (D2) and his daughter, Kee Wai Mun (KWM) who is a minor represented by Lee Ying Ying, as the 3rd Defendant (D3), being the mother, guardian and trustee of KWM).

[5] The Plaintiff is the biological sister of the Deceased.

[6] The Plaintiff had filed an OS No WA-31NCVC-168-01/2023 (Suit 168) to obtain a Letter of Administration (LA) for the Deceased's estate. Thereafter a caveat was lodged by D3 on 27 December 2022.

[7] On 25 August 2023 that Court in Suit 168 ruled that the probate proceedings as contentious and therefore to be converted to a Writ action.

[8] Suit 168 was later withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

[9] Thereafter, the Plaintiff learnt that Suit 3180 was filed by the Defendants and an order for LA was granted to D2 and D3 to administer the estate of the Deceased.

[10] The Plaintiff contended that she had no knowledge of Suit 3180 and was caught by surprise. It seemed that Suit 3180 was filed on 29 September 2023 and D1 had filed Renunciation to relinquish his rights for the LA of the Deceased's estate in Suit 3180. Subsequently, the order for LA in Suit 3180 was obtained on 30 November 2023.

Enclosure 84

[11] The Defendants seek the sum of RM200,000.00 from the Plaintiff, as security for costs to be paid to the Defendants' solicitors, as trustee until the disposal of the suit herein.

Enclosures 87 And 97

[12] These applications are pertaining to the appointment of Administrator Pendente Lite (APL).

[13] In encl 87, the Plaintiff seeks for the following prayers:

(a) Until the hearing and disposal of this suit, that Kee Lee Peow, the Plaintiff to be appointed as administrator pendente lite on the estate of the Deceased, in particular to pay debt and liability of the estate of the Deceased and to claim back the assets which have been transferred and or disposed off wrongly and not in accordance with the LA;

(b) Until the hearing and disposal of this suit, the Plaintiff is appointed as the administrator pendente lite to represent the estate under suit WA-22NCC-106-03/2023 and WA-24NCC-267-05/2021;

(c) That the Plaintiff's fee as the administrator pendente lite on the estate of the Deceased shall be fixed by this Honorable Court under O 72 r 20(4) of the Rules of 2012;

(d) That costs to be made the costs in cause; and

(e) Any other relief as deemed suitable by this Honorable Court .

[14] Whilst the Defendant in encl 97 sought for the following reliefs:

(a) That Toh Swee Lin (No KP: 830810-04-5052) from Messrs SL Toh & Co to be appointed as the administrator pendente lite for the estate of the Deceased until the disposal of this suit where Toh Swee Lin is given the power inclusive (not limited to) to administer, to pay out any proven debt or make any payment for the assets or monthly payment to the Beneficiaries from the estate of the Deceased and to represent the estate in any law suits involving the estate of the Deceased.

(b) If the appeal filed by the Defendants under Appeal No W-021883-10/2024 (Appeal) is allowed where D2 and D3's power as the administrators on the estate of the Deceased under the LA is revived, the order that Toh Swe