ADZAM BIN ANUAR (sebagai waris dan wakil waris Zainah Binti Mohd Sham (No.K/P-480430085848) dan cucu kepada Robea'ah Binti Mat Sapi Rabiah Binti Mat Safi (Sijil Mati-B918528)) v 1. ) AHMAD ZUHARI BIN MOHD SHAM 2. ) SHABARIAH BINTI MOHD SHAM 3. ) SERI INTAN BINTI MOKHTAR

Case Significance

Illustrates that the High Court has no original jurisdiction to set aside a distribution order under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, the exclusive remedy being a section 29 appeal, so a collateral fresh suit is an abuse of process liable to be struck out.

This High Court decision concerns a striking-out application in a suit seeking to set aside a distribution order made under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955. The plaintiff, suing as an heir and representative of a deceased beneficiary, sought to invalidate a distribution order affecting the small estate of a deceased proprietor, alleging that the defendants had procured that order through fraud and omission. The estate comprised undivided shares in immovable properties, and for many years after the death no steps had been taken to administer it until certain of the defendants initiated administration proceedings and obtained a distribution order from the Small Estate Distribution Office. The defendants applied to strike out the writ under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012. The central question was whether the High Court had any original jurisdiction to invalidate a distribution order made under the 1955 Act, or whether the exclusive remedy lay in an appeal under section 29 of that Act. The court held that the High Court has no original jurisdiction to set aside such a distribution order and that the statutory appeal under section 29 is the exclusive avenue, applying long-standing authority to that effect. It further found that the plaintiff and his family had known of the distribution order since 2015, had affirmed it in later proceedings, and yet had failed to appeal, so that the collateral challenge by a fresh suit was barred by laches and estoppel and amounted to an abuse of process. Concluding that the action was jurisdictionally unsustainable, inequitable and an abuse of process, the court struck it out to preserve finality and certainty in estate administration. The judgment illustrates that a distribution order under the 1955 Act must be challenged by statutory appeal, not by a fresh High Court suit. The court's approach reflected the policy that the statutory scheme for small-estate distribution is meant to be conclusive, and that permitting collateral High Court suits would undermine the certainty that scheme is designed to secure.