Saniah bte Ali and Others v Abdullah bin Ali

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 08 June 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 40
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 40
• Plaintiff Counsel: Salim Ibrahim (Harry Elias & Partners)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 923 of 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Abdul Rohim Sarip (Yogen & Partners)
• Date: 08 June 1990
• Subject Matter: Whether nomination created trust of CPF moneys in favour of nominee,CPF moneys,CPF member Muslim domiciled in Singapore,Distribution of assets,Beneficiary,ss 23 & 24 Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36),Provident Fund,Whether CPF moneys formed part of estate of member dying intestate,Whether CPF moneys formed part of estate of deceased member,Nomination,Probate and Administration,s 112(1) Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3),Whether Muslim law of succession applicable

Cur Adv Vult

The facts in this case have been agreed upon by the parties and are as follows. The abovenamed Saleh bin Ali died intestate on 5 April 1985 as a result of a road traffic accident. He was survived by his two stepsisters, Saniah bte Ali and Ne`mah bte Ali, the first and third plaintiffs; his stepmother, Asma bte Rais, the second plaintiff; and his brother, Abdullah bin Ali, the defendant. At the date of his death, there was standing to the credit of his account with the Central Provident Fund Board (CPF Board) an amount of $60,607.71. During his lifetime, the deceased nominated the first plaintiff as the sole nominee. Soon after his death, two sums comprising $60,506.71 and $101 (totalling $60,607.71) were paid to the first plaintiff on 10 July 1985 and 25 February 1986 respectively by the CPF Board. On 21 September 1987, upon petition by the first plaintiff, letters of administration to the estate of the deceased was granted to her as the administratrix of the deceased`s estate. Subsequently, on 28 August 1989 the defendant obtained from the Syariah Court an inheritance certificate declaring that the defendant, as the deceased`s lawful brother, is entitled to the entire estate of the deceased. That certificate was obtained by the defendant and issued by the Syariah Court pursuant to s 115(1) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3); before me there is no challenge to the certificate, and it is accepted as valid. The defendant is thus the sole beneficiary of the estate. It appears that the defendant initially claimed two amounts as due to him as the sole beneficiary of the estate of the deceased, namely: (i) a sum of $8,038.76, and (ii) a sum of $60,607.71, the latter being the amount paid out of the Central Provident Fund (the Fund) on the death of the deceased. In respect of the first sum, the parties have agreed that it belonged to the defendant, and accordingly, this sum has been paid to him. The dispute before me is on the second sum of $60,607.71. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties have agreed that the second and third plaintiffs should be withdrawn from these proceedings, and accordingly, by consent, an order was made striking out the second and the third plaintiffs as parties to these proceedings. Hereafter, I shall refer to the first plaintiff as the plaintiff. The issue for determination before me is whether upon the true construction of ss 23 and 24 of the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36) (CPF Act) and ss 112 and 115 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3) (AML Act), the plaintiff or the defendant is entitled to the amount of $60,607.71, being the amount paid out of the Fund on the death of the deceased.

Sections 23 and 24 of the CPF Act, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:

23(1) Except as may be provided for in regulations made under section 56, no withdrawals made by the authority of the Board from the Fund under section 15 nor the rights of any member of the Fund acquired thereunder shall he assignable or transferable or liable to be attached, sequestered or levied upon for or in respect of any debt or claim whatsoever.

...

(3) All moneys paid out of the Fund on the death of any member of the Fund shall be deemed to be impressed with a trust in favour of -

(a) the person or persons nominated under section 24(1) by the deceased member, if any; or

(b) the person or persons determined by the Public Trustee in accordance with section 24(2) to be entitled thereto,

but shall, without prejudice to the operation of the Estate Duty Act, be deemed not to form part of the deceased member`s estate or to be subject to his debts.

...

24(1) Any member of the Fund may by a memorandum executed in the prescribed manner nominate a person or persons to receive in his or their own right such portions of the amount payable on his death out of the Fund under section 20(1) as the memorandum shall indicate.

(2) If, at the time of the death of a member of the Fund, there is no person nominated under subsection (1), the total amount payable out of the Fund shall be paid to the Public Trustee for disposal in accordance with any written law for the time being in force, and if any person nominated, other than a widow, is under the age of 18 years at the time of payment of the amount payable shall similarly be paid to the Public Trustee for the benefit of the nominated person.

(3) The receipt of a person or persons nominated under subsection (1) or of the Public Trustee shall be a discharge to the Board for such portions of the moneys payable out of the Fund on the death of a member as are payable to the person or persons or the Public Trustee under subsection (2).

In this case, the deceased had, during his lifetime, pursuant to s 24(1) of the CPF Act nominated only the plaintiff to receive in her own right the entire amount payable on his death out of the Fund. The deceased died on 5 April 1985, and thereupon the plaintiff, under s 15(5) of the CPF Act, became entitled to withdraw the entire sum standing to the credit of the deceased`s account with the Fund. Section 15(5) provides as follows:

After the death of a member of the Fund a person nominated by that member in accordance with section 24(1) shall be entitled to withdraw such portion of the sum standing to the credit of that member in the Fund as is set out in the memorandum executed in accordance with that section.

She did withdraw the amount pursuant to that section and that amount under s 23(3) of the CPF Act was deemed to be impressed with a trust in her favour. For completeness, I should mention that under s 24(3) of the CPF Act the receipt by the plaintiff...