Beng Tiong Trading, Import And Export (1988) Pte Ltd v Maria Janda Achmad Bin Abdullah Wachdin Basharahil Alias Maria and Others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeWoo Bih Li J
Judgment Date26 March 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 67
Date24 March 2003
Docket NumberSuit No 1255 of 1996 (Registrar's
Year2003
Published date08 October 2003
Plaintiff CounselStanley Wong (Jing Quee Chin Joo)
Citation[2003] SGHC 67
Defendant CounselT P B Menon (Wee Swee Teow & Co),Norain Abu Bakar (KC Abu Bakar & Partners),Peter Chua (Peter Chua & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterParty failed to obey earlier direction of court to file application within time stated,Whether earlier interlocutory order should be set aside on application by party to be joined as co-defendant,Joinder,Whether earlier interlocutory order should be set aside because of subsequent judgment from higher court,Whether leave should be granted for party to be joined as defendant to existing suit,Interim orders,Civil Procedure,Parties

Introduction

1 This appeal arises from an application made by JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd ("JAK") to be joined as 14th defendant in this action commenced by Beng Tiong Trading Import & Export (1988) Pte Ltd ("Beng Tiong") against 12 beneficiaries of the estate of Shaik Ahmad Bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil ("the Testator"), with the Public Trustee being named as the 13th defendant. However JAK’s application also included a prayer that an Order of Court dated 19 July 1999 ("the 1999 Order) be set aside.

2 The Testator died on 15 July 1995 in Madura, Indonesia, leaving a large number of properties in Singapore. He made a Will in Singapore on 3 September 1938.

3 Probate to the Will of the Testator was originally granted to Shaik Sayeed bin Ahmad Wahdain Basharahil, one of the Executors and Trustees named in the Will. Subsequently the Public Trustee was appointed trustee of the Will by an Order of Court dated 11 October 1976 in Originating Summons No. 80 of 1976 as the Court was satisfied that the original trustee was permanently residing out of the jurisdiction and was unfit to act as such trustee. By this order, 61 immovable properties belonging to the estate of the Testator became vested in the Public Trustee. Since then 32 of those properties have been compulsorily acquired by the State leaving only 29 immovable properties vested in the Public Trustee.

4 On 11 July 1996, Beng Tiong commenced the present action ("Beng Tiong’s action) to claim the rights and interests of 12 beneficiaries in the immovable properties identified in a Consent to Sale dated 12 August 1993 ("the Consent"). The Consent had an annexure which was a draft agreement. About three years later, on 19 July 1999, Beng Tiong obtained the 1999 Order before an Assistant Registrar. The 1999 Order was obtained after arguments had been presented by Counsel for Beng Tiong and Counsel for the Public Trustee. It states, inter alia:

1.0 The Plaintiffs are hereby declared entitled to the rights, interests, benefits and entitlements of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 12th Defendants in the immovable properties identified in the Contract dated 12 August 1993.

2.0 The 13th Defendant, as trustee of the estate of the Testator, do take such steps as are necessary in cognisance of the declaration above, including but not limited to execution of the Deed of Assent at the proper time of distribution, to vest the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 12th Defendants’ interest in the immovable properties identified in the Contract in the Plaintiffs. No transfer of the interest in the immovable properties as identified in the Contract dated 12 August 1993 is to be made save if the consideration stated in the Contract is paid to the 13th Defendant as trustee of the estate.

3.0 That the parties do have liberty to apply.

4.0 There be no order on prayer 4 of the application.

5.0 The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 12th Defendants do pay the Plaintiffs costs fixed at $1,500.00.

AND UPON HEARING Solicitors for the Plaintiffs and for the 4th Defendant IT IS ORDERED THAT:

[the other orders are not material for present purposes.]

5 Subsequently, the Public Trustee, as the first applicant, and Quraisj Wahidin ("Quraisj"), as the second applicant, applied for various reliefs in OS 1030/2000. Quraisj was the attorney of six persons claiming to be some of the beneficiaries under the will of the Testator. In that application, the applicants sought, inter alia, an order that the Public Trustee be empowered to sell the properties described in the schedule thereto free from encumbrances including:

(a) the equitable interests of the beneficiaries under the will of the Testator,

(b) the interest claimed by various caveators against the properties.

6 The application for sale was objected to by the fifth respondent ("Musa") and the sixth respondent ("Salim"). They claimed to represent another group of beneficiaries. They also claimed that the persons whom Quraisj represented were not beneficiaries under the will of the Testator. Musa and Salim claimed that those whom they represented constituted all the beneficiaries.

7 Musa and Salim then filed OS 600626/2001 as plaintiffs and named the Public Trustee and Quraisj as defendants. In that application, they sought a determination of the true and lawful beneficiaries of the estate of the Testator and their respective shares and properties.

8 At a hearing of OS 1030/2000 on 1 September 2000, Beng Tiong appeared as an interested party. JAK was the fourth Respondent in this OS.

9 On 28 September 2001, after hearing parties, Judicial Commissioner Lee Seiu Kin ordered that:

(a) the Public Trustee be empowered to take steps in preparation for the sale of the Properties provided that no sale was to be made without the prior approval of the court,

(b) an inquiry be conducted to ascertain the persons entitled to the Properties,

(c) OS 600626 of 2001 be consolidated with OS 1030 of 2000 and that any inquiry be held on a date to be fixed.

He also gave consequential directions.

10 On the same day, Beng Tiong was given leave to be joined as the seventh Respondent in OS 1030/2000 in view of the 1999 Order that Beng Tiong had obtained.

11 The inquiry ordered by Lee JC was conducted on 3 July 2002 after which he made a determination of the beneficiaries. After hearing the parties as to costs, he made the following declarations and orders (Lee JC’s 2002 Order’):

1. The Beneficiaries of the estate of the Testator under Muslim law are the fourteen (14) persons set out in the 2nd Applicant’s 3rd Affidavit affirmed on the 21st September 2001 and filed herein on the 24th September 2001 namely

(i) Maria (only surviving widow)

(ii) Said

(iii) Umar

(iv) Awad

(v) Ali

(vi) Hassan

(vii) As’ad

(viii) Mushin

(ix) Salum

(x) Abu Bakar

(xi) Abdul Aziz

(xii) Fetum

(xiii) Wachdin

(xiv) Harith

2. (i) That the 1st Applicant as the current trustee of the Will of the abovenamed Testator be empowered to sell the properties described in the Schedule hereto by public tender, public auction or private treaty at a price not less than the reserved price of $17,970,000-00 on such terms and conditions as the 1st Applicant may in his absolute discretion determine freed from all encumbrances including:

(a) the equitable interests of the beneficiaries under the Will of the Testator; and

(b) the interest claimed by the Caveators against the properties set out in the Schedule hereto,

and as from the date of this Order all the claims of the beneficiaries and the Caveators who have lodged Caveats against the properties set out in the Schedule hereto shall be deemed to be cancelled or withdrawn.

(ii) If the 1st Applicant is unable to sell the Testator’s properties within six (6) months from the date hereof the parties are at liberty to apply.

3. The 1st Applicant as such trustee aforesaid be empowered to execute such assurances or transfers of the properties in favour of the purchasers or their nominees thereof and to receive the purchase price and to give good and valid discharges for the same.

4. The 1st Applicant shall not make any payment of the proceeds of sale to the beneficiaries without the leave of the Court.

5. The costs of the 1st and 2nd Applicants and the 5th and 6th Respondents are to be taxed on an indemnity basis and to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the Testator’s properties. There be no order as to the costs of the 1st to 4th and 7th Respondents.

6. All parties are to have liberty to apply.

THE SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO

[Details of the properties were stated.]

12 JAK claimed to have locus standi to make its present application in Beng Tiong’s action on the basis of two documents:

(a) An agreement dated 5 November 1994 between JAK and one Abdurrachman who signed in his capacity as the attorney of the heirs and heiresses of the testator.

(b) A series of assignments made on 12 February 1996 between the representatives of those who claimed through 6 original beneficiaries and a former director of JAK, one Syed Jafaralsadg Bin Abdul Kadir Alhadad.

13 The application was heard on 13 November 2002 by an Assistant Registrar who ordered, inter alia, that:

(a) JAK be granted leave to be joined as the 14th Defendant in the action,

(b) the 1999 Order be set aside.

That order also required Beng Tiong to pay costs to various parties. Beng Tiong was appealing against that order.

Submission for Beng Tiong

14 Mr Stanley Wong, Counsel for Beng Tiong, made submissions on the lack of merit about JAK’s claim and the merits of Beng Tiong’s claim.

15 He also submitted that JAK had been guilty of inordinate delay for the following reasons:

(a) Beng Tiong had lodged caveats on the Properties on 28...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 Octubre 2008
    ...the [said] declaration” (see Beng Tiong Trading, Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd v Maria Janda Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basharahil [2003] 2 SLR 518 at [4]). One JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd (“JAK”) (whose involvement in the events will become evident later) had applied to be joined as a par......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 Octubre 2008
    ...the [said] declaration” (see Beng Tiong Trading, Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd v Maria Janda Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basharahil [2003] 2 SLR 518 at [4]). One JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd (“JAK”) (whose involvement in the events will become evident later) had applied to be joined as a par......
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...just in the circumstances (see Beng Tiong Trading Import and Export (1998) Pte Ltd v Maria Janda Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basharahil[2003] 2 SLR 518 at [28]). Judgments and their enforcement 6.73 The rationale for awarding pre-judgment interest (pursuant to s 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT