1

DIPLOMA IN LAW
DIL 3233

WILL AND PROBATE ADMINISTRATION

GROUP ASSIGNMENT

PREPARED FOR:

MADAM MUNIRAH MOHAMAD

PREPARED BY:

MUHD ARIF SYAHMIE DIL202004

AIMAN HAIKAL DIL202026
MUHAMAD REZAREN DIL202018

SUBMISSION DATE:
2ND OF FEBRUARY 2023

1
 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, we would want to thank and honour God the Almighty for his
showers and blessings during our research to accomplish this task. The completion of this
assignment would not have been possible without the participation of all of the members of
my group listed above. Their involvement and commitment are much valued and gratefully
acknowledged. However, the group would like to express our appreciation to Madam
Munirah, our lecturer for this course, Will And Probate Administration, who has guided us
throughout the process of completing this assignment. We would also like to thank each of
our group members and students for their suggestions and opinions on what to fix and
improve to help us with our misunderstandings during this assignment. Again, we appreciate
all of the direct and indirect assistance from all involved parties in completing this
assignment.

This assignment is based on the topic of Public Trust Corporation (Amanah Raya
Berhad). We discussed various topics regarding Amanah Raya Berhad that came down
including the history of this corporation, what is the role of this institution in managing the
estate and the process of managing the property. As we know, Amanah Raya Berhad is a
government body that manages estates and besides that, we also know more clearly about the
role and services provided.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bi Contents Pages
l.

1. Introduction

2. Law delegating powers

3. History

4. Sitting of powers

5. Example case

6. Conclusion

7. References

2
 3

1. INTRODUCTION

Amanah Raya Berhad, a corporation created under the Companies Act of 1965, is actually a
part of the newly formed federal government agency. Any references to the Public Trustee
and Official Administrator in the repealed statutes are to be interpreted as references to the
Corporation in their place. However, the Minister of Finance holds the Corporation's shares in
accordance with the 1957 Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act.

Amanah Raya Trustees Berhad, formerly the Corporate Trust Department of Amanah Raya
Berhad, was chosen in 1966 to serve as the trustee for the country of Malaysia's first unit
trust. Since then, we've accumulated years of in-depth knowledge and experience in the
corporate trust sector. We provide superior services to meet their rising demand in the Islamic
and conventional capital market financial instruments, serving both the domestic and global
markets.

As a member of the AmanahRaya Group and with growing success in the market,
AmanahRaya Trustees Berhad was honoured with the prestigious BrandLaureate Awards
2008-2009 for the Best Brands in Financial Services-Trust Management in the year 2009. In
Malaysia and the Asia Pacific, the award recognises outstanding branding among
multinational corporations, organisations with ties to the government, and publicly traded
businesses.

2. LAW DELEGATING POWERS

Amanah Raya has specific jurisdiction to administer the Inheritance to enable a smooth
process to be implemented. Amanah Raya is also an institution protected by the Amanah
Raya Corporation Act 1995.

Section 17(1) of the AmanahRaya Corporation Act 1995

- AmanahRaya can issue a Power of Attorney in the form of a Declaration with asset
details for movable property* worth no more than RM600,000.

- This declaration is subject to Faraid for Muslims and the Partition Act 1958 for
non-Muslims or subject to the consent of all heirs as stipulated.

Section 17(2) of the AmanahRaya Corporation Act 1995

- AmanahRaya can issue a Power of Attorney in the form of an Instruction to direct
payment to the rightful heirs for movable property* of RM 50,000 and below.

- And the heirs need to submit the instructions to the bank to receive payment.

Section 8 of the Division of Small Estates (Division) Act 1955

3
 4

- Small Inheritance refers to real property consisting of immovable property in whole or

in part and not exceeding RM2 million.

- AmanahRaya can file an application to the Small Inheritance Division Unit to be

appointed as an Administrator or apply for a division order for movable and
immovable property.

Section 13 of the Public Trust Corporation Act 1995

AmanahRaya can file a petition in the High Court for

1) Administering an Inheritance containing movable property* and immovable property*

or movable property alone worth more than RM600,000.
2) Obtaining a Grant of Probate for Bequeathed Estate.
3) Obtaining a Power of Attorney for an intestate who died without a Will.
4) Replace the previous administrator who died before the Inheritance Administration
was implemented.
5) Replacing the previous Administrator who failed to complete the Estate
Administration.
6) Replace the Administrator who rejects the appointment chosen by the deceased.

For the administration of estates in Sarawak, it follows the "Administration Of Estates

Ordinance, Chapter 80" in which AmanahRaya, Kuching functions as the authority that
issues Power of Attorney and Grant of Probate for non-bumiputras in Kuching only. While
for other districts other than Kuching, Administrative Power of Attorney and Probate Grants
are issued by the District Office in their respective colonies.

3. HISTORY
Amanah Raya Berhad or ARB is the main trustee company in Malaysia. Since its
establishment as the Department of Public Trustees and Official Administrators on May 1,
1921, ARB has served the nation for over 80 years and is a market leader in providing trust,
inheritance management and Will services.

On May 29, 1995, the Department of Public Trustees & Official Administrators was
corporatized. On 1 August 1995, Amanah Raya Berhad started its operations. ARB services
have included legal, financial and administrative duties in preparing trust documents, and
wills, acting as trustees of trust funds, acting as administrators and executors of estates and
monitoring share trust fund transactions under their care. ARB is also involved in the
investment of assets held in its Mutual Funds which pay competitive dividends to its
Beneficiaries.

ARB is the property of the Malaysian Government, its shares are also held by the Minister of
Finance (Incorporated). Currently, ARB has 20 branches nationwide with its headquarters
located at Wisma AmanahRaya, No. 2, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur.
4
 5

Background of Corporatization
- To continue to excel as an institution that offers professional services in the field of
benevolence and inheritance management that meets customer satisfaction and social
responsibility.

- As the trustee of various leading share trust units, Amanah Raya Berhad fosters and helps
the growth of Malaysian families and businesses.

- Amanah Raya Berhad offers a combination of expertise, competitive service fee rates as
well as personalised service that meets the client's goals.

- To complement the corporate benevolence service, Amanah Raya Berhad is also a leader in
overseeing corporate loan stock and bond issuance as well as fund management and various
retirement benefit schemes.

- Functioning as a trustee and administrator, the department's services include legal, and
financial duties, preparation of trust documents, and wills, acting as a trustee for a trust fund,
as an administrator and executor for an estate as well as controlling the affairs of a stock trust
fund under custody.

4. SITTING OF POWERS
1) Jurisdiction of Amanah Raya
A) Represent the heirs in court and manage the heir's estate
Manage directly under section 17(1), Amanah Raya Corporation Act 1995 which is to
manage property not exceeding RM 600,000 while section 17(2) for movable property
not exceeding RM 50,000.

B) Administer through (PPPK)

Section 8, Small estates (distribution) Act 1995 where Amanah Raya can file a
petition to administer the property and obtain an order for the distribution of property
for intestate property where the amount of movable property does not exceed RM
2,000,000

C) Administer through the civil high court

Section 13 stated, trust corporation act 1995 where the movable or immovable
property is worth more than RM 600,000. Where obtain a grant of estate probate,
replacing the administrator or replacing the previously appointed executor or failing
to settle the estate.

2) Examine the list of assets, and liabilities and identify debtors and creditors

A) Based on the guidelines given by the sharia supervision council of Amanah Raya
Berhad.
5
 6

B) the assessment of the deceased's property list is done by proving property

documents
C) the debt borne by the dead will be seen between God and man
D) the debtor and creditor identifier are important so that the deceased's property will
be used to pay the debtor
E) the amount of the deceased's property can be ascertained and is within the
jurisdiction

3) Pay off all debts of the deceased to related parties

Amanah Raya will act as the administrator of the deceased's property after the
appointment is made, the issuance of an administrator's power of attorney in the form
of a declaration or instruction depending on the type, gross value and condition of
inheritance. Before the debt is settled, the creditor must show proof of claim if the
deceased has a will, the trust will manage based on the evidence

4) Issuing a power of attorney under sections 17(1) and 17(2)

A) The provision of section 17 (1) gives jurisdiction to Amanah Raya Berhad to

directly administer movable property valued at no more than RM 600,000.00. In this
assessment, Amanah Raya Berhad will issue a statement stating the property to be
produced. Amanah Raya will submit the Statement to the bank that will pay the
money to Amanah Raya Berhad. Amanah Raya then pays the heirs; after all, debts are
cleared and the will is executed.

B) The provision of section 17 (2) gives the authority to Amanah Raya Berhad to
directly administer the estate that contains movable property not exceeding RM
50,000.00. In this assessment, Amanah Raya Berhad will issue an Instruction in which
it is stated that the property will be divided among the heirs of the deceased. The heir
then only needs to present this Instruction to the bank for example and the bank will
make a payment to the heir whose name is recorded in the Instruction. Intestate
estates containing movable property and immovable property or immovable property
only worth no more Issuing an order either in the form of Form E, which is a Partition
Order or Form F, which is appointing an Administrator. If under the jurisdiction of the
High Court, a petition to obtain an Administrative Power of Attorney (SKM) or
Probate Grant will be made. The High Court will set a hearing date and an SKM
production order will be made.

5. EXAMPLE OF CASES

JIGARLAL KANTILAL DOSHI v AMANAH RAYA BHD

FACT OF CASE:
6
 7

● In his will, the appellant's father (the "dead") designated his mother and brother as
executors. After the decedent passed away, the executors brought a lawsuit (Suit 195)
against the appellant to, among other things, demonstrate that the shares of the
deceased's company that he owned were held in trust for the estate. The respondent,
Amanah Raya Bhd (or "ARB"), was chosen in their place as the estate's administrator
after the appellant successfully petitioned the High Court to cancel the executors'
award of probate. Without requesting a grant of administrative letters, Following a
successful application to replace itself as the plaintiff in Suit 195, ARB filed a petition
(referred to as "Petition 13") seeking relief under Section 181 of the Companies Act
of 1965. ARB acquired a grant of probate to the decedent's estate almost 12 1/2 years
after being named the administrator. The appellant attempted to have the grant of
probate revoked on the grounds that it had been issued improperly and that ARB
should have requested letters of administration instead but was unsuccessful both
before the High Court and the Court of Appeal (the "COA"). However, the Federal
Court ruled in favour of the appellant on a subsequent appeal and invalidated the grant
of probate.The COA's conclusion that the grant of probate was "essentially a grant of
letters of administration with will affixed" was rejected by the supreme court. After
the Federal Court's ruling, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss Suit 195 and
Petition 13 on the grounds that ARB lacked the legal jurisdiction to pursue such
proceedings without being granted letters of administration. In response, ARB
requested and was granted letters of administration pendente lite by the High Court ex
parte. The purpose of this grant, which the court approved a month before the
complete trial of the consolidated lawsuits, which included Suit 195 and Petition 13,
was to allow ARB to represent the decedent's estate at the trial.In spite of the
appellant's challenge to ARB's locus standi, the High Court continued the trial and, in
the end, held, among other things, that ARB did have locus standi to act on behalf of
the estate at the trial based on the letters of administration pendente lite and that the
appellant's shares in the company founded by the deceased were held on a resulting
trust for the estate. The appellant argued in the current appeal against that decision
that the granting of letters of administration pendente lite could only be effective
prospectively from the date of its granting and could not retroactively cure or
regularise actions that ARB had started, carried out, or continued without the granting
of letters of administration and that those actions were incurable nullities

JUDGEMENT:

The court held that the doctrine of relation back does not apply to nullities, the appeal had to
be accepted in light of the authorities, which called for accepting it with costs of RM 5,000
and overturning the High Court's ruling. An entity like ARB could not overlook the
requirement to secure letters of administration. On March 19 and again on June 24, 2008, the
necessity of obtaining the letters was brought up. Due to the fact that doing so would merely
encourage indifference, the court was unable to make an exception (see para 27).(2) The
weight of the authorities and the fact that the dispute involved only members of the
deceased's family and no third parties and that it should be resolved according to established
7
 8

law instead of convenience, inevitably led the court to uphold the weight of the authorities
and disregard ARB's oversight despite the fact that the dispute in the instant case began more
than 20 years ago. The trial was, under the circumstances, a fruitless exercise, thus the court
had no need to consider the trust problem (concerning the shares) (see para 28).

KAMIL AZMAN BIN ABDUL RAZAK & ORS v AMANAH RAYA BERHAD& ORS

FACT OF CASE:

In 2009, the Appellants (which included Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman, among others) filed
a lawsuit for breach of trust against the Respondents (which included Amanah Raya Capital
Sdn Bhd (ARC), Amanah Raya Development Sdn Bhd (ARD), and Amanah Raya Berhad
(ARB), alleging that the Respondents had mismanaged a trust (the Trust) that had been
established by one of the Appellants. In order to settle the lawsuit, a consent judgement was
entered in 2010 (Consent Judgment).The loan facilities provided by ARC to Abdul Razak and
Kamil Azman, respectively, have had their maturities postponed until July 27, 2012 on an
interest-free basis (Clauses 1 to 3). If only partial payment(s) of the amount(s) due are made
by Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman on July 27, 2012, and provided that the amount still
owing from Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman on July 27 does not exceed RM2,000,000, the
parties shall enter into negotiations within three months of July 27, 2012 (unless mutually
extended by the parties) to restructure their respective Loan Facilities, which shall take into
account.Venture Agreement mentioned in Clause 9 of the Consent Judgment (below), as well
as the assignment of the aforementioned interest to ARC for the purpose of paying back the
remaining amounts owed under the Loan Facilities (Clause 5). By August 11th, 2010, Abdul
Razak, Kamil Azman, and their designated company (the Trust) must sign a Joint Venture
Agreement (JV Agreement), in the manner and with the terms previously agreed upon by the
Appellants and ARD (Clause 9). The parties agree that they shall have no further claims
against each other and undertake not to bring the complaints stated in this action in the future
(Clause 10). (Clause 10).

A JV Agreement had not been reached two years after the Consent Judgment was filed
because the parties could not agree on whether the Trust had the authority to sign the
proposed JV Agreement. Additionally, no payment was made on the loan facilities. As a
result, a number of cross-claims were filed by the Appellants and Respondents against one
another.In contrast to the Respondent, who sought a determination that ARB was free from
any responsibility to engage into the JV Agreement and that Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman
repay the loan facilities with interest, the Appellants sought specific performance of the JV
Agreement among other things.

JUDGEMENT:

High Court

8
 9

The respondent's responsibility to complete the JV Agreement was released.

The loan sum plus interest was to be paid back to the Respondents by the Appellants.
If the Consent Judgment consisted of reciprocal promises and obligations that were
dependent upon one another, such that the performance of one (the repayment of the loan
facilities) was dependent upon the fulfilment of the other, that was the key question to be
decided on in the Federal Court appeal (the conclusion of the JV Agreement between the
parties). The Appellants argued the following in favour of this: First, the Consent Judgment
established reciprocal obligations because the parties agreed to postpone the loan repayment
date to after the anticipated signing of the JV Agreement, and (ii) Clause 5 of the Consent
Judgment anticipates that the loan facilities will be restructured to include Abdul Razak's
25% interest in the JV Agreement as some sort of collateral.
Second, the Consent Judgment's terms must specify a specific order of performance in order
for the court to apply either section 53 of the Contracts Act 1950 (Act) or the common sense
order of precedence outlined in section 55 of the Act. These clauses say the following:53.
Order of reciprocal promise performance

If the contract clearly specifies the order in which reciprocal commitments are to be fulfilled,
then those promises must be fulfilled in that order; if not, then the promises must be fulfilled
in the order that the nature of the transaction dictates.
55. The impact of a breach of a promise that should be fulfilled first in a contract with
reciprocal commitments
When a contract contains reciprocal promises that must be fulfilled in order for the other to
be fulfilled or for its performance to be claimed, and the party making the last of these
promises breaches it,The promisor is not entitled to the fulfilment of the reciprocal promise
and is obligated to make up for any losses the other party may incur as a result of the
contract's non-performance.

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that "nothing from all these terms can be
understood to suggest that the execution of one condition (such as loan repayment) may be
subject to a pre-condition that the JV Agreement" (nothing from all these clauses can be
construed to say this). The Federal Court specifically pointed out that "the Consent Judgment
does not state that the repayment of loans would be undertaken from the earnings of the Joint
Venture." Because there was no clear or implied order of performance under sections 53 and
55 of the Act, Abdul Razak and Kamil Azman were not required to return the loan until the
JV Agreement was finalised. The Federal Court stated in an illuminating manner that "the
appellants have woven some legal intricacies,In characterising the Consent Judgment as they
did, the Court below lacked credible facts and legal determinations.

The Federal Court viewed the declaration of release as being compatible with the principle
"that, if one party refuses to perform an agreement, the counterparty may perceive himself as
discharged" with reference to the release of the Respondent's obligation to participate in the
JV Agreement. Due to the Appellants' insistence on including the Trust as a party to the JV
9
 10

Agreement, which was later determined to be impossible legally due to the Trust's lack of any
legal capacity.Additionally, the Federal Court upheld the idea that a settlement agreement
should be recorded as a judgement:

"... must be interpreted as a business tool. Finding out the context-specific meaning of the
pertinent contractual phrase is the goal. It must be done objectively in terms of what a logical
person would have understood it to mean under the circumstances of the actual parties in a
commercial context. The appropriate contextual sense of the words employed must be
inferred from this."

CHONG FOOK SIN v AMANAH RAYA BHD

FACT OF CASE:

In Civil Appeal No. 02()-37 of 2009(W), Amanah Raya Bhd ('ARB'), the first respondent,
was, at all relevant times, the administrator of Raja Datuk Nong Chik bin Raja Ishak's ('the
dead') estate. The second through sixth respondents, who were at all relevant times the
beneficiaries of the decedent's estate, had filed a lawsuit against 13 defendants for allegedly
conspiring to steal money from the estate of the decedent. The High Court, however,
dismissed this suit on March 9, 1998. Then, in August 1998, ARB filed a lawsuit against the
aforementioned 13 defendants on behalf of the second through sixth respondents as the
executor of the decedent's estate.More than ten times, this claim was sent to case
management, and on April 7, 2004, ARB's attorneys' request to be released from further
liability was granted. However, a request for a further adjournment was turned down, and
because ARB admitted that it was not prepared to continue the trial at that time, its claim was
dismissed. On April 28, 2004, ARB filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal challenging the
judgement that dismissed its claim.

The second through sixth respondents submitted an intervener application to join the civil
appeal on November 12, 2008.The basis of the intervener application, according to the
second through sixth respondents (referred to as "the interveners"), was to make sure that all
concerns were fairly and totally decided and decided upon, as well as to provide all required
support. The appellant, Cheong Fook Sin, contested the intervener application, arguing,
among other things, that the interveners lacked any legitimate basis in fact or law to do so
because they had no connection to the matter under appeal. The interveners, who were
beneficiaries of the decedent's estate, did not have an interest in the estate until distribution
was made, according to the appellant's argument. not have a legal stake in the issue under
appeal.The appellant's argument was that the interveners, who were beneficiaries of the
decedent's estate, had no interest in the estate until distribution had been made and
administration was complete. The intervener's right to file a lawsuit had been abandoned,
according to the appellant, who also claimed that because they did not file an appeal against

10
 11

the dismissal of their initial lawsuit, they were barred by issue estoppel from filing a lawsuit
in the current appeal because they did not appeal the decision.

The appellant further criticised the interveners' excessive delay.The Court of Appeal
determined that the interveners' beneficial interests were sufficient for current purposes and
that they had a direct connection to the appeal's topic. The Court of Appeal also determined
that due to a gap in the Rules of the Court of Appeal of 1994 (the "RCA"), O 15 r 6(2)(b) C
of the Rules of the High Court of 1980 (the "RHC") applied. This appeal was filed by the
appellant against that judgement, and leave was granted on October 12, 2009.This appeal was
filed by the appellant against that judgement, and leave was granted on October 12, 2009.
The parties all concurred that the outcome of this appeal would control two more appeals
based on the same facts. The appellant argued that the interveners lacked a legitimate reason
to get involved in the case and that the Court of Appeal erred by failing to recognise that the
criteria for getting involved in appellate proceedings are the same as those for getting
involved in High Court cases.

JUDGEMENT:

The RHC's O 15 r 6(2)(b) contains the law governing the evaluation of intervener
applications. Regarding intervener applications, the RCA is silent, and there is no clause that
is analogous to O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the RHC. However, Rule 4 of the RCA stipulates that
"where no other provision is provided by any written law or by these Rules," the procedure
and practise in the RHC 1980 must apply mutatis mutandis. In light of this, the Court of
Appeal is in a position to decide an intervener application in accordance with O 15 r 6(2)(b)
of the RHC and r 4 of the RCA.The "legal interest" standard would still apply, but it would
have to be one that has something to do with the topic of the case before the Court of Appeal.
The subject of the proceedings at the High Court was different and distinct from the subject
of the current appeal, which was made to the Court of Appeal. Due to their status as
beneficiaries of the decedent's estate, the interveners claimed an interest, which was more
pertinent to the High Court proceedings before the claim was dismissed.The interveners as
beneficiaries were not involved in the appeal because it solely addressed ARB's failure to
comply with the order that was made against it. A legal interest could not be created by an
indirect interest. Furthermore, the interveners' intention to provide aid in their intervener
application did not establish a "legal interest" (see paras. 26–34 and 39(a)–(c)). The
interveners did not attempt to intervene at the earliest opportunity, and they provided no
justification for their failure to submit an application to the High Court. The petitioner must
demonstrate that, aside from the legal interest, he was not prevented from filing the
application by any other factors.A past court decision that resulted in the issue of estoppel is
one example of a precluding situation. The question of estoppel arose as a result of the
finding of the interveners' ability and interest to initiate a lawsuit, and as a result, the
interveners were bound by the res judicata doctrine (see paras. 36–38, 39(e)–(i)).

The Court of Appeal

11
 12

But the intervener application was approved by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
determined that the application had merit because:
(a) O15r6(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court of 1980 (the "RHC") applied due to a gap in
the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 (the "RCA") and the application of r 4 of the RCA;
(b) the interveners had a beneficial interest that satisfied the "test of establishing their interest
for the purposes of obtaining leave"; and
(c) the said beneficial interest "clearly and

The decision of the COA was challenged before us on the grounds that:
The COA erred in law and/or fact in concluding that the second through sixth respondents
(the "interveners") had a legal basis to intervene into the COA proceedings (the "appeal"); as
such, they had a beneficial interest that was obviously and directly related to the subject of
the appeal.When the interveners were permitted to enter the proceedings at the COA after
their prior civil suit in D5-22-975 of 1994 (prior claim) on the same subject matter had been
dismissed, the COA committed a legal and/or factual error. This forced the interveners to get
around the res adjudicate and/or issue estoppel principles.
The failure of the COA to recognise that the criteria for intervention in appellate proceedings
are the same as those for intervention in High Court proceedings.

The COA committed a legal and/or factual error by failing to

(I) apply O 15 r 3 of the RHC 1980 read with r 4 of the RCA 1994;
(ii) distinguish a legal interest from a purely beneficial interest, the former being capable of
satisfying the term in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52 (PC);
and
(iii) in any case, failing to distinguish the subject matter of the civil

We'll start by restating the issue that this court was asked to decide, namely whether the
standard for beneficiaries of an estate intervening in High Court actions brought by its
administrators is the same as the one for appeal procedures.
According to our opinion, the question must be considered in the context of this appeal in two
different ways:
(a) whether the High Court test is relevant; and
(b) if so, whether the Court of Appeal rightly decided the intervener application.

High Court

The Privy Council established the rules for analysing intervener applications at first instance
in Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors. [1969] 2 MLJ 52 (PC) (PC).
In the cases Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v. Superace (M) Sdn Bhd (1992) 2 MLJ 63, [1992] 2 CLJ
1153, and [1992] 1 CLJ 344, the then Supreme Court upheld the Pegang Mining ruling (Rep).
It is established law, according to the authorities, that a party may be added if his "legal
interests" will be affected by the ruling in the action but not if his business interests alone
would be harmed. This is what the then Supreme Court stated in Tohtonku Sdn Bhd. in
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v. Choong Sam H & Ors, Lord Diplock, pp. 55–56.
12
 13

O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the RHC reflects this and states: (a) Only a person who ought to have been
joined as a party or whose presence before the court is necessary to guarantee that all issues
in dispute in the cause or matter may be decided and adjudicated thoroughly and effectively;
or

Whether there is a matter that the court feels would be just and convenient to decide between
him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter that arises out of,
relates to, or is connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the case or matter.

Regarding applications from interveners, the RCA say nothing. There is no provision that is
analogous to the RHC's O 15 r 6(2)(b) above.
The Court of Appeals, however, shall have "all the powers and obligations, as to modification
or otherwise, of the High Court," according to Section 69(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act
of 1964 (the "CJA").

The relevant provision is O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the RHC read with r 4 of the RCA, and the test
enshrined in that provision must, in our opinion, necessarily be moulded (mutatis mutandis)
to suit the circumstances of the Court of Appeal. Based on the aforementioned provisions, we
would say that it stands to reason the COA does have jurisdiction/power to decide an
intervener application.
The procedure and practice in the High Court Rules of 1980 [P.U.(A)50/1980] shall apply
mutatis mutandis if no other provision is made by any written legislation or by these Rules.

On that basis, in our opinion, the "legal interest" test would still be relevant. However, the
legal interest at issue must be one that pertains to the COA's appeal's subject matter. It should
be noted that the appellant's subject matter occasionally overlaps with the High Court's case.
In such circumstances, both parties would have the same legal interest. However, there may
be circumstances in which the focus of the COA appeal is distinct from, even though it is
related to, the focus of the High Court proceedings. One such instance is the current appeal.
The interveners claim an interest because they are beneficiaries of the decedent's estate. This
is more pertinent to the High Court proceedings than they were before being struck off. The
appeal exclusively addresses ARB's failure to abide by the court's injunction against it. The
interveners as beneficiaries could not and did not have to be involved in this. In such cases, it
is the proposed intervener's responsibility to prove a legal interest in the topic of the appeal
before the COA by making a reference to the case that is now being heard by that court. A
"legal interest" cannot be created through an indirect interest.

Additionally, the application for intervention must be submitted in the first instance in which
the potential interveners were aware of the High Court proceedings and had the chance to
take the appropriate action (see Tradium Sdn Bhd v. Zain Azahari bin Zainal Abidin & Anor).
Indrani a/p Rajaratnam & Ors. v. Fairview Schools Bhd, [1995] 1 MLJ 668, [1996] 2 CLJ
270, (No 1) 1998 produced one MLJ 99 and one CLJ 285. In this context, "opportunity" must
be taken to refer to a legitimate route and the right to submit such an application. An
applicant must demonstrate that he is not prevented from making such an application by any
13
 14

other conditions, separate from the necessary "legal interest."These precluding factors can
include a past court ruling that resulted in an issue estoppel strong enough to use the res
judicata concept. A party that was so hindered would not be able to ask for permission to
intervene.
We all agree, in light of the aforementioned, that the court's inquiry must be answered
affirmatively, with the caveats mentioned above.

6. CONCLUSION
The administration of Islamic inheritance entails a process that passes through many
stages and formalities. Any level may experience issues. In addition to many written
rules, there are at least four entities involved in the management and administration of
Islamic inheritance, which leads to "confusion" among the general public. Not only do
issues develop during the current legal proceedings and estate administration, but also
following the order of inheritance split.

The split and consolidation of written legislation are being advocated. A substantial
written statute that describes Islamic heritage, applicant eligibility, and application
requirements, including whether probate or estate management is covered by this Act.
The Probate and Administration Act, Act Pusaka Kecil, and Amanah Raya Berhad are
all combined in their provisions. This Act includes inheritance-related procedures,
rights, and obligations. When there is a death among the Muslim Trust Directors
Raya, this Act allows them the right to seek probate, administer the estate in the three
institutions, and also request a faraid certificate in the Sharia Court within a specific
time frame if this is not the case.This Act contains provisions relating to searches,
including processes and procedures, the determination of Great Estate, Property Small
Inheritance, and Simple Property. Along with the fundamentals of the application
process, this Act also has to cover the administration and distribution of inheritance.
The "Islamic Inheritance Act" is the suggested name for this Act.

7. REFERENCES
1) https://sites.google.com/site/seruanmakmur/amanahraya
2) https://www.amanahraya.my/ms/pentadbiran-pusaka/#:~:text=Seksyen%2017(
2)%20Akta%20Perbadanan,pihak%20bank%20untuk%20menerima%20bayar
an.
3) file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/13-Article%20Text%20(without%20name
%20and%20affiliations)-55-1-10-20170807.pdf
4) http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/788/7/BAB_4.pdf
5) https://afyan.com/bidang-kuasa-amanah-raya-dalam-pusaka.html/
14
 15

6)

15