JUDGMENT

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

(Enclosures 63 And 83)

Introduction

[1] In this suit, the plaintiff challenges the validity of the alleged last will and testament of the late Thong Wee Kee ("Impugned Will").

[2] The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th defendants ("Defendants") filed an application in Enclosure [63] for the appointment of an administrator pendente life over the estate of the late Thong Wee Kee. The Defendants proposed the appointment of Mr Ashvin Mahendran of Baker Tilly Insolvency PLT as administrator pendente lite pending the full and final determination of this suit.

[3] The plaintiff and the 4th defendant opposed the application. They contended that no compelling circumstances exist to justify such an appointment. Alternatively, if any appointment is required, it should be from among the existing parties and not a costly professional third party.

[4] Six days before the date scheduled for hearing of the application, the Defendants filed an additional affidavit in Enclosure [82] and subsequently sought leave of this Court by an application in Enclosure [83] to allow the additional affidavit to be used.

[5] Upon perusal of the application and affidavits and considering the submissions, this Court finds that the Defendants have failed to establish the necessary requirements for appointment of an administrator pendente life. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The application for leave in Enclosure [83] is likewise dismissed.

Brief Background Facts

[6] The deceased, Thong Wee Kee, passed away on 22 February 2020. The deceased allegedly executed the Impugned Will appointing the 1st and 2nd defendants as executors of his estate. The 1st defendant is the deceased's son while the 2nd defendant is a solicitor. The executors obtained a grant of probate in September 2020, approximately seven months after the deceased's death.

[7] Sometime in May 2022, that was about one year and eight months after the probate was extracted, the plaintiff issued a citation against the probate. The grant of probate was subsequently surrendered to the High Court in June 2022.

[8] An application was later made by the executors by way of an originating summons ("OS 2515") to have the citation set aside. After OS 2515 was served on the plaintiff, the plaintiff initiated a writ action ("Writ 410") against the defendants. The defendants then applied to strike out Writ 410.

[9] This ultimately resulted in the following:

(a) Writ 410 was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and

(b) order in terms was granted for OS 2515.

[10] In March 2023, the plaintiff issued a second citation following the withdrawal of Writ 410. The present suit was then filed. In the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking to set aside the Impugned Will.

[11] In January 2025, the Defendants circulated a draft application proposing the appointment of the 1st and 2nd defendants as administrator pendente lite and invited the plaintiff's agreement. Subsequently, the plaintiff's solicitors responded by letter requesting information pertaining to:

(a) the administration of the estate since the grant of probate,

(b) the status of the estate before the grant, and

(c) the proceeds from the sale of land known as the "Sahabat Land".

[12] The Defendants' solicitors replied stating that the proposed administrator pendente lite would furnish the accounts upon appointment but failed to address the specific inquiries raised in the plaintiff's solicitors' letter.

[13] Subsequently, the Defendants filed the present application seeking to appoint Mr Ashvin Mahendran as administrator pendente lite in place of the previously proposed 1st and 2nd defendants.

[14] The application was first brought before this Court on 20 January 2025. On that day, directions were accordingly given for parties to exhaust their affidavits within the timelines prescribed under the Rules of 2012. Parties were allowed extended period to exhaust affidavits if they could mutually agree.

[15] The application was initially fixed f