JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] This matter came before this court seeking the removal of the defendant as the co-administrator of the estate of Lim Tar Soon (the Deceased), and for vesting orders in respect of certain properties forming part of the said estate.

[2] It proceeded to trial though the defendant remained unrepresented. As he appeared without legal representation, this court was at all times conscious of its duty to ensure that the interests of an unrepresented litigant were adequately protected and that the defendant understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings.

The Parties And Their Relationships

[3] All parties to this action are members of the Lim family and are related by blood as children or grandchildren of the Deceased. He died intestate on 27 July 1979, some 46 years ago.

[4] The familial relationship between the parties here is that the 1st plaintiff is a son of the Deceased, the 2nd plaintiff his daughter making her the sister of the 1st plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff is the grandson of the Deceased being the son of Lim Fook Choy who was a son of the Deceased who has since passed on. The late Lim Fook Choy died on 27 October 2013. The 3rd plaintiff became the executor of his late father's estate through Probate Grant No 32NCVC-238-02/2015.

[5] The defendant is also a son of Lim Tar Soon and is the brother of the 1st and 2nd plaintiff. The defendant is the paternal uncle of the 3rd plaintiff.

[6] Following the death of Lim Fook Choy in 2013, there were originally three administrators of the estate of the Deceased, namely the 1st plaintiff, the defendant, and one Lim Meng Choy (another son of the Deceased, who has also since passed away).

[7] Letters of Administration to the estate of the Deceased were granted by way of Administrative Order No 325 of 1983 dated 5 November 1997 to the 1st plaintiff, the late Lim Fook Choy, the defendant, and Lim Meng Choy as joint administrators, some 28 years ago.

The Plaintiffs' Case

[8] The basis for the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs centers on the properties in the estate of the Deceased. Amongst them are:

(i) EMR3552 Lot 4740 (now known as GM2523 PT No 4740) Mukim and Daerah Bentong, Pahang; and

(ii) EMR1521 Lot 1386 (now known as GM854 PT No 1386) Mukim Beserah and Daerah Kuantan, Pahang (the Kuantan land);

(iii) Geran 9461 Lot 813 Mukim Jenderak, District of Temerloh, State of Pahang (the Temerloh land).

[9] The plaintiffs claim that the defendant must be removed as co-administrator because he has been uncooperative and has hindered the proper administration of the estate.

[10] According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has presented unreliable proposals which lack legal or practical viability regarding the disposition of estate assets. The defendant has brought buyers who were unwilling to pay deposits, whose offers were substantially below market value, and who suggested questionable payment arrangements including multiple post-dated cheques.

[11] It is also the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant has insisted on accepting only his preferred buyers and has disagreed with the sale of assets to other potential buyers, thereby causing delays in the administration process to the frustration of all beneficiaries.

[12] The plaintiffs sought to prove that the defendant has made a minimal contribution to the management and upkeep of the estate. The moment now is crucial because there are issues in existence with trespassers on estate lands that require urgent attention.

[13] A deadlock has arisen regarding a property in Temerloh, where beneficiaries agreed that land should be subdivided, but the defendant refused to agree or provide any reasonable basis for his refusal, leaving beneficiaries in limbo.

[14] Six beneficiaries excluding the defendant have spent their own money on plans necessary for subdivision, but the plaintiffs claim that the defendant refuses to agree despite this being the only way forward.

[15] The plaintiffs contend that efficient and swift administration o