Asmah Musa JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Enclosure 10 - Defendant’s Application to Strike Out the case

A. INTRODUCTION

[1]This is my judgment in respect of the Defendant’s application vide Enclosure 10 seeking an order pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim.

[2]The Plaintiffs (three individuals and a company, Ascenta Logistics Sdn Bhd) commenced the present action by Writ of Summons dated 13.06.2025. The suit centres on the estate of the late Bobby Rao, who passed away on 12.03.2023. The Defendant is the widow of the deceased and the administrator of his estate pursuant to a Letter of Administration (“LA”) issued by the District Land Administrator on 21.11.2023.

[3]Broadly stated, the Plaintiffs allege that the deceased had left a Will, prepared by Maybank Trustees Berhad and witnessed by the 1st and 3rd Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant had suppressed or destroyed the said Will to procure the LA and to distribute all the deceased’s assets to herself, save for one savings account for the minor daughter, Davinia.

[4]Among the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs are:

(i)declaration that LA issued to the Defendant is null and void;

(ii)recognition of the alleged Will;

(iii)an order compelling the Defendant to sell the deceased’s 150,000 shares in the 4^th Plaintiff company; and

(iv)consequential orders.

[5]The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs’ entire action should be struck out because:

(a)they lack locus standi to challenge the LA or to assert rights in the deceased’s estate;

(b)the Plaintiffs have failed to plead particulars of fraud as required by Order 18 rule 12 ROC;

(c)the action is statutorily time-barred under section 29(1)Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955(“SEDA”); and

(d)the claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

[6]The Plaintiffs resist the application, asserting that serious triable issues arise particularly whether the Will existed and whether the Defendant had fraudulently suppressed or destroyed it. They rely on Lai Yoke Ngan & Anor v Chin Teck Kwee & Anor

[7]After considering all affidavits, the submissions of parties, and the authorities cited, I allow the Defendant’s application for the reasons that follow.

B. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES1. Order 18 rule 19 ROC 2012

[8]The law on striking out is well settled. Under O.18 r.19(1), pleadings may be struck out if they:

(a)disclose no reasonable cause of action;

(b)are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(c)it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action;

(d)are otherwise an abuse of process of the court.

[9]The Court’s power is exceptional and exercised sparingly. The oft-cited Federal Court authority Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Bhd “plain and obvious cases” where the claim is bound to fail.

[10]However, where the facts are undisputed, the pleadings defective, or the suit is legally untenable, the Court is duty-bound to strike out an action that cannot be salvaged by a trial.

C. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

[11]The Defendant’s application crystallises four principal questions:

(1)Whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to challenge the Letter of Administration.

(2)Whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded fraud.

(3)Whether the Plaintiffs’ action is time-barred under S.29(1)SEDA

(4)Whether the Plaintiffs’ claim is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of process.

I address each in turn.

D. ISSUE 1 - LOCUS STANDI(a) Applicable legal framework

[12]The deceased’s estate falls within the statutory regime of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955. A “person interested” under the Act typically includes beneficiaries, creditors, purchasers, or parties claiming rights in the estate.

[13]It is trite that only a person with a direct legal interest has standing to challenge the issuance of a distribution order or LA. The Federal Court in Ikatan Kelab-Kelab Melayu Pulau Pinang v Yaya