JAIREUS@MARY FERNANDEZ v 1. ) ROSEMARIE ADOLFO APAGALANG 2. ) Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Perkerja

Case Significance

Confirms that a formally registered EPF nomination will not be set aside on suspicion alone: the presumption of regularity under section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act 1950 protects the statutory act, and clear evidence of incapacity, fraud or procedural impropriety is required to displace it.

This High Court decision at Ipoh concerns a challenge to the validity of a registered Employees Provident Fund nomination, and whether the court may look behind a formally executed statutory nomination on the basis of suspicion. The plaintiff was the mother of a deceased EPF contributor who had died of COVID-19 pneumonia leaving savings of about RM327,868.03. Believing herself to be his nominee, she was shocked to learn that he had nominated his former domestic maid, the first defendant, a foreign national, as the sole beneficiary. She sued to have the nomination declared invalid, alleging that at the material time her son was critically ill — suffering from diabetes, amputation of fingers and toes and significant mental confusion — and incapable of understanding or executing a legal document, that the first defendant had fraudulently caused her own name to appear as nominee, and that the EPF (the second defendant) had failed to verify the execution. The first defendant, who had left Malaysia and whose solicitors discharged themselves, did not attend trial, and judgment in default was entered against her; the action proceeded against the EPF. Applying the presumption of regularity of official acts under illustration (e) to section 114 of the Evidence Act 1950 — that acts of EPF officers are presumed to have been honestly and conscientiously performed absent cogent contrary evidence — the court held that suspicion alone could not unsettle a statutory act designed to ensure certainty and finality in the distribution of retirement savings. It found that the deceased had personally attended the EPF branch and executed the nomination form, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that his thumb was so affected that a thumbprint could not be obtained, and that there was no credible evidence of fraud, forgery or procedural impropriety by the EPF. Sympathising with the grieving mother but holding that sentiment could not displace proof, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim with no order as to costs and affirmed the nomination as valid and enforceable.