JUDGMENT

Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ:

(1) The background to this appeal is best understood by the following chronology of events which spanned over 20 years:

01.07.1991 Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi ("the deceased") died leaving a will in which his wife, Damayanti Kantilal Doshi, and his youngest son, Jogesh Kantilal Doshi (Jogesh) were named as executrix and executor respectively of the deceaseds estate. (In this judgment we will refer to them as the then executrix and executor)

17.08.1991 The then executrix and executor then instituted Johor Bahru High Court Suit No. 22-195-1991 ("Suit No. 195") against the appellant, his wife and Overseas Industries Sdn Bhd (a company which was formed by the deceased in 1969) for inter alia a declaration that the appellant holds 1,475 shares in the said company in trust for the estate.

15.10.1991 Probate was granted in favour of the then executrix and executor.

17.09.1994 The appellant, his wife and Overseas Industries Sdn Bhd filed a notice of motion for an order that the grant of probate granted by the High Court to the then executrix and executor be revoked.

29.07.1995 The High Court allowed the above-mentioned application and ordered that the official administrator be appointed to administer the estate of the deceased.

The then executrix and executor appealed against that order of the High Court.

04.06.1998 The Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the High Court and the respondent (ARB) was duly appointed as the administrator of the estate pursuant to Public Trust Corporation Act 1995.

(Meanwhile, several writs of summons and originating summonses as well as originating petitions had been filed by the parties mainly regarding the issues of directorial positions and the holding of shares in Overseas Industries Sdn. Bhd.

By 28 February 2006, all the cases were consolidated and were ordered to be tried together with Suit No. 195.)

01.11.2007 A notice of caveat was entered by the appellant against the estate of the deceased via Probate No. 30-2007.

04.01.2008 A grant of probate was issued to ARB.

(The appellant contended that the issuance of the said grant of probate was made without any notice given to the appellant.)

05.02.2008 The appellant filed an Originating Summons No. 24-384-2008 in the High Court to have the appointment of the ARB as administrator of the estate revoked and a private trust company be appointed in the ARBs place to complete the administration of the estate.

19.03.2008 The appellant filed a summons in chambers (encl. 194) seeking to strike out the Suit No. 195 on the ground that the ARB had no locus standi to maintain the suit as the ARB had neither applied for nor extracted the grant of letters of administration to the estate.

27.03.2008 The ARB filed an affidavit in reply stating that they had, on 4 January 2008, extracted the grant of probate for the deceaseds estate.

31.03.2008 The appellant withdrew his application in Originating Summons No. 24-384-2008 for the revocation of the appointment of the ARB as administrator of the deceaseds estate.

On the same day, the appellants summons in chambers (encl. 194) was struck out by consent. It was also ordered that "the appellant shall withdraw all the outstanding interlocutory applications in the consolidated actions" to pave the way for the Suit No. 195 and the consolidated actions to be heard.

24.06.2008 The appellant filed an Originating Summons No. 24-1970-2008 (the present action) applying for an order that the grant of probate dated 4 January 2008 to the ARB be set aside on the ground that the said probate was wrongfully and unlawfully issued for the following reasons:

(i) there was in existence a caveat entered by the appellant on 1 November 2007 on the estate; and

(ii) in any case the ARB was only entitled to letters of administration with will annexed and/or letters of administration de bonis non and not a grant of probate.

03.11.2008 The appellants application was dismissed by the High Court.

2