State of Johor v Tunku Alam Shah: Validity of Will & Bequest of 'State Property'

The State of Johor and Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Johor Sultan Iskandar brought an action against Tunku Alam Shah ibni Tunku Abdul Rahman and others in the High Court of Singapore, concerning the compensation of $25 million awarded for the compulsory acquisition of Lot 1049 of Mukim 2 (“Tyersall”), based on a will made by the late Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor on 14 April 1895. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the compensation should be paid to the second plaintiff (the present Sultan of Johor) or, alternatively, to the first plaintiff (the State of Johor), arguing that Tyersall was constituted as "State property" in the will. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that Tyersall was bequeathed to the throne of Johor, entitling the second plaintiff to receive the compensation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiffs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over compensation for compulsory acquisition of land bequeathed as 'State property'. Court determines validity of will and nature of bequest.

1.7 Decision Date

30 August 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
State of Johor	Plaintiff	Other	Claim Allowed	Won	Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier LLC Cheryl Tan of Drew and Napier LLC Tan Kok Peng of Drew and Napier LLC
Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Johor Sultan Iskandar	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Allowed	Won	Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier LLC Cheryl Tan of Drew and Napier LLC Tan Kok Peng of Drew and Napier LLC
Tunku Alam Shah ibni Tunku Abdul Rahman	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Sarah Tan of Chor Pee and Partners Lim Chor Pee of Chor Pee and Partners
Ungku Sulaiman Bin Abdul Majid	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Timothy Tan Thye Hoe of AsiaLegal LLC Jeya Putra of AsiaLegal LLC
Tengku Ibrahim Bin Suleiman	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Timothy Tan Thye Hoe of AsiaLegal LLC Jeya Putra of AsiaLegal LLC
Ungku A Rahman Bin Ungku Hassan	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Timothy Tan Thye Hoe of AsiaLegal LLC Jeya Putra of AsiaLegal LLC
Daing Othman Bin Ibrahim	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Timothy Tan Thye Hoe of AsiaLegal LLC Jeya Putra of AsiaLegal LLC
Ungku Rosiah Binte Abdul Rahman	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Dismissed

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Lee Meng	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Davinder Singh	Drew and Napier LLC
Cheryl Tan	Drew and Napier LLC
Tan Kok Peng	Drew and Napier LLC
Sarah Tan	Chor Pee and Partners
Lim Chor Pee	Chor Pee and Partners
Timothy Tan Thye Hoe	AsiaLegal LLC
Jeya Putra	AsiaLegal LLC

4. Facts

Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor executed a will on 14 April 1895.
The will bequeathed Tyersall in Singapore to Sultan Ibrahim as "State property".
Sultan Abu Bakar died on 4 June 1895.
Sultan Ibrahim became the ruler of Johor after his father’s death.
Tyersall was compulsorily acquired by the government, resulting in $25m compensation.
The Collector of Land Revenue paid the compensation into court due to a dispute over title.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the compensation should be paid to the current Sultan.

5. Formal Citations

State of Johor and Another v Tunku Alam Shah ibni Tunku Abdul Rahman and Others, OS 1359/2004, [2005] SGHC 156

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1895-04-14	Sultan Abu Bakar executed a will.
1895-06-04	Sultan Abu Bakar died.
1923-06-15	Dato Mustapha obtained letters of administration de bonis non with will annexed for the estate of Sultan Abu Bakar.
1959-05-08	Sultan Ibrahim passed away.
1959-09-23	Letters of administration were granted to Sultanah Marcella and Tungku Temenggong Ahmad.
1971-05-17	An indenture was executed appointing trustees of Sultan Abu Bakar’s will.
1990-11-30	Notice of Acquisition of Tyersall was published.
1991-03-02	The Collector of Land Revenue held an inquiry to determine compensation.
2004-04-28	The Collector placed an advertisement in The Straits Times regarding the inquiry.
2004-06-01	The sum of $25m was awarded as compensation.
2004-06-09	The Collector obtained a court order to pay the compensation into court.
2004-10-14	The plaintiffs filed the Originating Summons.
2005-02-15	TAS filed a counter-notice.
2005-08-31	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Choice of law
- Outcome: The court held that the validity of the will is governed by the lex situs (Singapore law), not the lex domicile (Johor law).
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - (1883) 2 Kyshe (Eccles) 31
Validity of bequest under Muslim law
- Outcome: The court held that Muslim law was not part of the lex situs in 1895 and therefore does not invalidate the bequest.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - (1883) 2 Kyshe (Eccles) 31
Construction of will
- Outcome: The court held that Sultan Abu Bakar intended Tyersall to be 'State property' held by the reigning Sultan of Johor, not personal property of Sultan Ibrahim.
- Category: Substantive
Rule against perpetuities
- Outcome: The court held that the bequest of Tyersall as 'State property' did not offend the rule against perpetuities because it is a bequest to a 'corporation sole'.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Order for payment of compensation to the second plaintiff
Alternatively, order for payment of compensation to the first plaintiff
Declaration that the defendants are not 'persons interested' under the Land Acquisition Act

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of entitlement to compensation
Construction of will

10. Practice Areas

Estate Planning
Trusts and Estates Litigation
Private Wealth Management

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
In re Miller	High Court	Yes	[1914] 1 Ch 511	England and Wales	Cited to confirm the relevance of the lex situs in determining the incidents of an estate in land.
Sheriffa Fatimah binte Aboobakar bin Mahomed Al Mashoor v Syed Allowee	Straits Settlements Court of Appeal	Yes	(1883) 2 Kyshe (Eccles) 31	Singapore	Cited as a binding precedent establishing that the disposition of immovable property in Singapore is governed by the lex situs, not the lex domicile.
Ng Sui Nam v Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1987] SLR 66	Singapore	Cited to reiterate that a decision of the Straits Settlements Court of Appeal is binding on the High Court.
Regina v Willans	Court of Judicature of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca	No	(1858) 3 Kyshe 16	Singapore	Cited to explain the implications of the phrase “Justice and Right” in the Second Charter of Justice 1826.
Ong Cheng Neo v Yeap Cheah Neo	Court of Judicature of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca	No	(1872) 1 Kyshe 326	Singapore	Cited to show that English law may be adapted to the circumstances of a particular colony.
In the Goods of Abdullah	Court of Judicature of Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca	No	(1835) 2 Kyshe (Eccles) 8	Singapore	Cited to show that the Second Charter of Justice introduced the existing Law of England and abrogated any law previously existing.
Khoo Hooi Leong v Khoo Chong Yeok	Privy Council	No	[1930] AC 346	Malaysia	Cited to explain that modifications of the law of England arise from the necessity of preventing injustice or oppression.
In the Matter of the Estate of Choo Eng Choon	Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements	No	(1911) 12 SSLR 120	Singapore	Cited as an example of the recognition of Chinese polygamous marriages in the Straits Settlements.
In the Goods of Lao Leong An	Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements	No	(1867) 1 SSLR 1	Singapore	Cited as an example of the recognition of Malay polygamous marriages in the Straits Settlements.
Cheang Thye Phin v Tan Ah Loy	Privy Council	No	[1920] AC 369	Malaysia	Cited as an example of the recognition of Malay polygamous marriages in the Straits Settlements.
Re Loh Toh Met, Decd	High Court	No	[1961] MLJ 234	Malaysia	Cited to reiterate that polygamous marriages were recognised not by reason of religious beliefs but because it would be unjust to apply it to him in this country as a member of the race to which he belongs.
Mighell v Sultan of Johore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1894] 1 QB 149	England and Wales	Cited to establish that Sultan Abu Bakar was recognized as a sovereign ruler and to show the distinction between the Sultan of Johor’s private property and “State property”.
Perrin v Morgan	House of Lords	No	[1943] AC 399	England and Wales	Cited to explain the armchair rule, which enables the court to put itself in a testator’s shoes and consider the circumstances and knowledge of the testator.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

State property
Lex situs
Lex domicile
Will construction
Rule against perpetuities
Corporation sole
Compulsory acquisition
Sovereign ruler

15.2 Keywords

Will
State property
Land acquisition
Johor
Singapore
Succession
Muslim law
Tyersall

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Wills and Probate	90
Contested Wills	90
Succession Law	90
Choice of Law	80
Property Law	70
Property Disputes	60
Land Law	60
Real Estate	60
Conveyance	40
Conveyancing	40
Eminent Domain	30
Constitutional Law	30
Zoning, Planning and Land Use	30

16. Subjects

Wills and Estates
Conflict of Laws
Land Acquisition