Ramzan v Ramzan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1951
• Date: 22 March 1951
• Docket Number: Case No. 201
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Singapore, High Court.

(Murray-Aynsley C.J.)

Case No. 201

Ramzan and Others

and

Ramzan.

Belligerent Occupation — Powers and Duties of Occupant — Validity of Courts Set Up by Occupant — Validity and Effect of Orders, Judgments and Decrees of Occupant's Courts — Postliminium — Relevance of International Law — Japanese Judgments and Civil Proceedings Ordinance, 1946 — The Law of Malaya.

The Facts.—During the course of the Japanese occupation of Malaya the defendant became the sole surviving trustee of the will of a deceased. In January 1945, he was convicted of the offence of a criminal breach of trust by a Japanese court and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. In May 1945, the Estate and Trust Agencies (1927) Limited was, by consent of all the beneficiaries, appointed by an order of the Japanese Court sole trustee in place of the defendant. This order was subsequently set aside in 1950 under s. 3 of the Japanese Judgments and Civil Proceedings Ordinance, 1946, but, for reasons which are not here material, no other decree was substituted under s. 5 of that Ordinance. Meanwhile the Estates and Trust Agencies Company managed and administered the affairs of the estate. In September 1950 a summons was taken out by the plaintiffs applying for the appointment of the Company as a trustee of the will of the deceased. This summons was later amended by the insertion of a prayer for directions on the question whether the Company was entitled to any remuneration for their past services to the estate of the deceased.

Held: that whilst there was (1) no ground for treating the Japanese decree as a judgment, and (2) no obligation arising from agreement for the estate to pay the Company any remuneration, the benefit derived by the beneficiaries from the activities of the Company created an obligation to pay a reasonable remuneration for the services rendered and an indemnity for expenses incurred by them. “By statute, certain courts were set up for the Straits Settlements and these statutes remained in force during the occupation period. The Japanese courts did not comply with the statutory requirements. There could not by statute be any other courts in the territory comprised within the Straits Settlements. Therefore there could be no [valid judgments given by the Japanese courts]. Nor could a judgment of a purported court in the territory be a foreign judgment.” Furthermore, “when territory of a State has been occupied by an enemy and liberated, the extent to which acts...