1. ) Chong Chee Wai 2. ) Chong Chee Seong [menyaman sebagai pentadbir-pentadbir bersama dan waris-waris bagi hartapusaka Chong Kiw @ Chiong Yen Wah (No. K/P: 460110-10-5143)] 3. ) Kwan Mai Han 4. ) Chong Chee Khoon [menyaman sebagai waris-waris bagi harta pusaka Chong Kiw @ Chiong Yen Wah (No. K/P: 460110-10-5143)] v 1. ) Chong Chee King 2. ) Chong Chee Yong [disaman sebagai pentadbir-pentadbir bagi harta pusaka Chong Kiw @ Chiong Yen Wah (No. K/P: 460110-10-5143)]

Case Significance

Illustrates the reluctance of the court to revoke or amend a grant of letters of administration absent a clear failure by the co-administrators to discharge their duties: the plaintiffs having failed to make out sufficient grounds, and the case not warranting resort to the inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4, the application was dismissed.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Hazizah Kassim, concerns an application to revoke or amend a grant of letters of administration on the ground that the co-administrators had failed to discharge their duties. The dispute was among members of a family over the estate of the deceased. The plaintiffs, some suing as co-administrators and heirs and others as heirs, brought proceedings against the defendants, who were co-administrators of the estate, contending among other things that there had been a division or breakdown in the performance of the administrators' duties, that the defendants had failed to carry out their responsibilities as co-administrators, and raising whether a particular property formed part of the deceased's estate. The plaintiffs sought to have the letters of administration revoked or amended.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application. It examined whether there were sufficient grounds to revoke or amend the grant of letters of administration and whether the defendants had truly failed in their duties as co-administrators, and was not persuaded that the case reached the threshold required for such intervention. It considered the invocation of the court's inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and held that the scenario before it did not warrant resort to that jurisdiction. Concluding that the plaintiffs had not made out sufficient grounds to disturb the existing grant, the court dismissed their application in the relevant enclosure, with no order as to costs. The court's approach reflects the seriousness of displacing a personal representative once appointed: the administration of an estate is entrusted to the grant-holders, and disagreement among family members or dissatisfaction with the pace or manner of administration is not, without proof of a real dereliction of duty, a sufficient reason to unseat co-administrators midstream. The judgment illustrates the reluctance of the court to revoke or amend a grant of letters of administration absent a clear failure by the administrators to discharge their duties, and the limited role of the inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 in an estate-administration dispute.