Syed Abbas v Islamic Religious Council: Trustee Appointment Dispute in Raja Siti Trust

Syed Abbas bin Mohamed Alsagoff and Syed Omar bin Mohamed bin Ali Alsagoff applied to the High Court of Singapore on 17 December 2009, seeking a declaration or appointment as trustees of the Raja Siti Trust, currently administered by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). The applicants' claim was based on an interpretation of the will of Raja Siti bte Kraying Chanda Pulih and, alternatively, on Section 42 of the Trustees Act. The court dismissed the action, holding that the applicants were not entitled to trusteeship under the will and lacked the standing to be appointed under the Trustees Act, reinforcing MUIS's statutory role in administering wakaf.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Action dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Syed Abbas sought trusteeship of the Raja Siti Trust, currently managed by the Islamic Religious Council. The court dismissed the application, upholding the Council's role.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura)	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Aaron Lee of Allen & Gledhill LLP Edwin Tong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Fazaliah bte Md Arsad of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Syed Abbas bin Mohamed Alsagoff	Applicant	Individual	Action dismissed	Lost	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann LLP Andre Yeap of Rajah & Tann LLP Farrah Salam of Rajah & Tann LLP
Syed Omar Bin Mohamed bin Ali Alsagoff	Applicant	Individual	Action dismissed	Lost	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann LLP Andre Yeap of Rajah & Tann LLP Farrah Salam of Rajah & Tann LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Aaron Lee	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Edwin Tong	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Fazaliah bte Md Arsad	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Kelvin Poon	Rajah & Tann LLP
Andre Yeap	Rajah & Tann LLP
Farrah Salam	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

Raja Siti created a trust in her will dated 29 November 1883.
The will appointed Syed Mohamed bin Ahmad Alsagoff as the first trustee and executor.
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) currently administers the Raja Siti Trust.
The applicants, Syed Abbas and Syed Omar, are trustees of the SMA Alsagoff estate.
The applicants sought to be appointed trustees of the Raja Siti Trust.
MUIS sought the removal of previous trustees in 2003 due to mismanagement.
The applicants are not beneficiaries of the Raja Siti Trust.

5. Formal Citations

Syed Abbas bin Mohamed Alsagoff and Another v Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura), OS 1265/2008, [2009] SGHC 281

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1883-11-29	Will of Raja Siti bte Kraying Chanda Pulih was dated
1891-04-18	Raja Siti bte Kraying Chanda Pulih died in Mecca, Saudi Arabia
1906-07-03	Syed Mohamed bin Ahmad Alsagoff died
1906-09-03	Probate was granted to the executors of the estate of Syed Mohamed bin Ahmad Alsagoff
1915-01-01	Syed Omar and Syed Ali were discharged as executors of the estate of Syed Mohamed bin Ahmad Alsagoff
1958-01-01	Syed Ibrahim bin Omar and Syed Ali bin Ibrahim Alsagoff made an application in OS 103 to be appointed executors and trustees of the estate of the Testatrix
1964-01-01	Syed Mohamed bin Hassan Alsagoff and Syed Omar bin Abdulrahman Alsagoff brought a separate action seeking appointment as trustees of the Raja Siti Trust
1981-04-18	Mohamed died
1991-11-29	Deed of Appointment executed by Ali
1998-02-21	Redha died
2003-10-20	Order of Court was made in Originating Summons No 1070 of 2003
2009-12-17	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Appointment of Trustees
- Outcome: The court held that the applicants were not entitled to trusteeship under the will and lacked the standing to be appointed under the Trustees Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Interpretation of testamentary intent
  - Locus standi to apply for appointment
  - Conflict of interest
Interpretation of Wills
- Outcome: The court interpreted the will, distinguishing between the roles of executor and trustee and finding no interchangeable use of the terms.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intratextual use of words
  - Testamentary intent
  - Distinction between executor and trustee
Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the Applicants did not have locus standi to bring an application under s 42 of the Trustees Act.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the Applicants are trustees of the estate of Raja Siti
Appointment of the Applicants as trustees of the estate of Raja Siti

9. Cause of Actions

Application for declaration of trusteeship
Application for appointment of trustees

10. Practice Areas

Trust Law
Charity Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 453	Singapore	Cited for the principles of construction of wills, particularly the need to construe the will as a whole and consider the intratextual use of words.
Hudson v Hudson	N/A	Yes	Hudson v Hudson (1737) 1 Atk 460, 26 ER 292	England and Wales	Cited for the common law rule that a will remains valid even if no executor survives the testator, with an administrator appointed by the court to carry out the will's instructions.
In re Cockburn’s Will Trusts	N/A	No	In re Cockburn’s Will Trusts (1957) Ch 438	England and Wales	Cited to distinguish the situation where the testator names the same persons as executors and trustees, in which case the executors become trustees after completing pre-distribution formalities.
Doe Dem Joseph Gwillim v Samuel Gwillim	N/A	Yes	Doe Dem Joseph Gwillim v Samuel Gwillim (1833) 5 B & Ad 122 at 129, 110 ER 737 at 740	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court must ascertain the meaning of the words used by the testator, not what the testator actually intended as distinct from those words.
In re Chapman’s Settlement Trusts	N/A	Yes	[1977] 1 WLR 1163	England and Wales	Cited for the general principle that in construing a will, the words and expressions used ought to be taken in their ordinary, proper and grammatical sense.
Syed Salim Alhadad v Dickson Holdings Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 257	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of Section 57(1) of the Trustees Act, specifically regarding who has locus standi to apply for the appointment of a new trustee.
LS Investment Pte Ltd v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 754	Singapore	Cited for the Court of Appeal's interpretation of Section 58(2) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), which establishes the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) as the administrator of all wakaf.
In re Firth	N/A	Yes	[1912] 1 Ch 806	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of the term 'expedient' as meaning what will facilitate matters.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Trustees
Executors
Wakaf
Mutawalli
Testatrix
Raja Siti Trust
Administration of Muslim Law Act
Trustees Act
Locus standi

15.2 Keywords

Trusteeship
Wakaf
Muslim Law
Charitable Trust
Singapore
High Court
Islamic Religious Council

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Wakaf Law	85
Syariah	80
Trust Law	75
Succession Law	60

16. Subjects

Trust Law
Muslim Law
Charitable Trusts
Succession Law