GLENN FAUSTINN ASIDAZ v Selvi @ Kupamah A/p Subramaniam (Disaman dalam kapasiti Pentadbir dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Sundarasamy A/L Arockiasamy (No.K/P: 601022-08-6719/ 6068728)( si mati)

Case Significance

Illustrates how a Malaysian court determines the validity of a will under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Wills Act 1959: where the attesting witnesses confirm the testator's sound mind and capacity is not actually challenged, the will stands, and letters of administration obtained over the same estate may be set aside in favour of the named executor and beneficiary.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Judicial Commissioner Hazizah Kassim after a full trial heard together with a related suit, concerns the validity of a will and the setting aside of letters of administration over a deceased person's estate. The plaintiff sued as the sole executor and beneficiary named in a will made by the deceased, his uncle, seeking to cancel the Surat Kuasa Mentadbir (letters of administration) that the defendant had obtained over the estate and a declaration that the will was valid and effective. The plaintiff had been about eight years old when the deceased executed the will in 2004, bequeathing a parcel of land to him. The defendant, sued in her capacity as administratrix and trustee of the estate, had obtained the grant of administration; the central questions were whether the will of 2004 was valid under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Wills Act 1959, and where the burden of proof lay.

The court found the will valid. The attesting witnesses gave evidence that the deceased was of sound mind and understanding when he signed the will in their presence, and the defendant had not in fact challenged the deceased's testamentary capacity at the time of execution, so the statutory formalities of the Wills Act 1959 were satisfied. On that footing the court set aside the letters of administration dated 22 January 2020, declared the plaintiff the sole lawful executor and beneficiary under the will, and ordered the land to be transferred back into the deceased's name within 30 days of the order and pending the extraction of a grant of probate, with any rental income collected to be paid over to the estate. It ordered each party to bear its own costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the evidential burden in a probate dispute and of the weight given to unchallenged attesting-witness testimony on testamentary capacity.