Alsagoff v Aljunied: Leasehold Interests, Fraud, Conspiracy & Intermeddling
Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff, as administrator, and others sued Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and others in the High Court of Singapore, asserting leasehold interests over properties at 18, 20, and 22 Upper Dickson Road. The plaintiffs claimed fraud, conspiracy, and intermeddling, alleging the defendants wrongfully terminated the leases. The court (Aedit Abdullah JC) found the lease subsisted but dismissed the claims of fraud, conspiracy, and intermeddling. The Plaintiffs have appealed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim asserting the subsistence of their leasehold interests was successful, but their claims in fraud, conspiracy and intermeddling were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs sought to assert leasehold interests and claimed fraud, conspiracy, and intermeddling. The court found the lease subsisted but dismissed the other claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Tan Teng Muan, Loh Li Qin |
| Abdul Majid Omar Harharah | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Tan Teng Muan, Loh Li Qin |
| Kamiliah binte Ali Harharah | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Tan Teng Muan, Loh Li Qin |
| Fatimah Mohamed Hashim Alhabshee | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Tan Teng Muan, Loh Li Qin |
| Abdullah bin Mohd bin Abdullah Alhabshee alias Abdullah Mohammed Abdullah Al-Hebshi | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Tan Teng Muan, Loh Li Qin |
| Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied @ Harun Aljunied | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | Kirpal Singh, Osborne Oh |
| Syed Abdulkader bin Syed Ali @ Syed Abdul Kader Alhadad | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | Kirpal Singh, Osborne Oh |
| BMS Hotel Properties Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Syed Salim Alhadad bin Syed Ahmad Alhadad | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Syed Ahmad Alhadad bin Syed Abdulkader Alhadad | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkader Alhadad | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Syed Ibrahim bin Abdulkader Alhadad | Defendant | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Teng Muan | Mallal & Namazie |
| Loh Li Qin | Mallal & Namazie |
| Kirpal Singh | Kirpal & Associates |
| Osborne Oh | Kirpal & Associates |
4. Facts
- A 999-year lease was granted in 1877 for properties at 18, 20, and 22 Upper Dickson Road.
- Syed Ahmad bin Abdulrahman bin Ahmat Aljunied acquired the reversionary interest in 1892.
- In 1969, leasehold interests were assigned to various parties, predecessors to the Plaintiffs.
- The Defendants claimed the lease was terminated due to breaches of covenants.
- The Plaintiffs asserted they were deprived of their inheritance, the leasehold interests.
- The 4th to 7th Defendants purportedly conveyed the reversionary and leasehold interests to the 3rd Defendant in 1994.
- The active Defendants submitted that there was no case to answer.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff (administrator of the estates of Shaikah Fitom bte Ghalib bin Omar Al-Bakri and others) and others v Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and others and other suits, Suits No 263, 264 and 271 of 2010, [2016] SGHC 252
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lease for 999 years granted for the properties. | |
| Syed Ahmad bin Abdulrahman bin Ahmat Aljunied acquired the reversionary interest over the properties. | |
| Leasehold interests assigned to Syed Mohamed bin Hashim bin Mohamad Alhabshi (No. 18), Shaikh Ali bin Abdulgader Harharah (No. 20), and Shaikhah Fitom binte Ghalbi bin Omar Al-Bakri (No. 22). | |
| Mohamad Alhabshi and Fitom Al-Bakri passed away. | |
| OS No. 1122 of 1992 involved an application by the 4th and 5th Defendants to have themselves appointed trustees of the trusts of the will of Ahmad Aljunied. | |
| Former Trustees allegedly notified the Plaintiffs of breaches of the lease. | |
| The 4th to 7th Defendants purportedly conveyed both the reversionary interests and the leasehold interests in the properties to the 3rd Defendant. | |
| The 3rd Defendant sought to obtain possession of the properties in OS No. 1234 of 1994. | |
| Ali Harharah, together with some others, took out proceedings against the 3rd to 7th Defendants in OS No. 1052 of 1995 to set aside the Conveyance and Confirmation. | |
| Deed of Rectification and Confirmation executed. | |
| Kamal Harharah applied to set aside the order for possession and the order dismissing OS No. 1052 of 1995 in Summons No. 4805 of 1999 and Summons No. 4961 of 1999. | |
| Suits No 263, 264 and 271 of 2010 filed. | |
| The 1st and 2nd Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiffs’ present actions. | |
| In Summonses No. 2248, 2250 and 2249 of 2010, Belinda Ang J determined an application for striking out which touched on the relationship between the present suit and the earlier proceedings. | |
| In Suit No. 424 of 2011, the 1st and 2nd Defendants of the present action brought a claim against the 3rd Defendant for failure to pay the full consideration for the conveyance of the reversionary interests and the leasehold interests in the three properties. | |
| The 1st plaintiff was appointed the administrator of Fitom Al-Bakri’s estate. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Subsistence of Leasehold Interests
- Outcome: The court found that the lease remained in force.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that fraud was not proven.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that conspiracy was not proven.
- Category: Substantive
- Intermeddling
- Outcome: The court found that intermeddling was not proven.
- Category: Substantive
- Submission of no case to answer in civil matter
- Outcome: The court considered the effect of the submission of no case to answer.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the lease remained valid
- Expunging of interests registered by the Defendants
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration that the lease subsisted
- Fraud
- Conspiracy
- Intermeddling
10. Practice Areas
- Leasehold Interests
- Conspiracy
- Fraud
- Intermeddling
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Swee Khiang and another v Borden Co (Pte) Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 745 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must determine whether there was any evidence adduced by the plaintiff that prima facie establishes the elements of his claim when the defendant submits no case to answer. |
| Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff (administrator of the estate of Noor bte Abdulgader Harharah, deceased) and ors v Harun bin Syed Hussein Aljuied (alias Harun Ajunied) and others and other suits | High Court | No | [2011] 2 SLR(R) 661 | Singapore | Cited to show the relationship between the present suit and the earlier proceedings. |
| Salford Corp v Lever | Queen's Bench | No | [1891] 1 QB 168 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of fraud by an agent. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Yogambikai Nagarajah v Indian Overseas Bank | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 774 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that common law requires serious allegations such as those of fraud to be established by compelling evidence. |
| Tang Yoke Kheng v Lek Benedict | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that common law requires serious allegations such as those of fraud to be established by compelling evidence. |
| Chua Kwee Chen v Koh Choon Chin | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that common law requires serious allegations such as those of fraud to be established by compelling evidence. |
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of both forms of conspiracy. |
| EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | No | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the continued existence or otherwise in Singapore law of lawful means conspiracy will need to be determined by a higher court. |
| Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proof of conspiracy is normally to be inferred from other objective facts. |
| Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co, Ltd v Veitch | House of Lords | No | [1942] AC 435 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that if the defendants were acting in what they perceived to be their own best interests, then it could not be said that they had a predominant purpose to injure the plaintiffs. |
| Wu Yang Construction Group Pte Ltd v Zhejiang Jinyi Group Co, Ltd and others | High Court | No | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 451 | Singapore | Cited as a case where fraud is referred to as a form of an unlawful means. |
| Yap Jeffery Henry v Seow Timothy and others | High Court | No | [2006] SGHC 6 | Singapore | Cited as a case concerned with fraud in the context of s 340 of the Companies Act. |
| Max-Sun Trading and another v Tang Mun Kit and another | High Court | No | [2016] SGHC 203 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the unlawful act was deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Mara v Browne | High Court | No | [1896] I Ch. 199 | England and Wales | Cited as an authority referring to trustees de son tort as constructive trustees. |
| Nolan v Nolan | Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal | No | [2004] VSCA 109 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a trustee de son tort purports to act for the beneficiaries. |
| Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No. 2) | House of Lords | No | [1982] AC 173 | United Kingdom | Cited for the approach that intention to injure must be the sole objective of the tortfeasors, which has not been adopted in subsequent cases. |
| Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al Bader | High Court | No | [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 271 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the existence of a combination is often inferred from the circumstances and acts of the alleged conspirators. |
| The Dolphina | High Court | No | [2012] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the existence of a combination is often inferred from the circumstances and acts of the alleged conspirators. |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others | High Court | No | [2004] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not necessary for all the conspirators to come together and execute their respective roles in the scheme at the same time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Act), Section 9(1) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), s 340 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Landlord and Tenant Act 1730 (4 George II Chapter 28) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leasehold interests
- Reversionary interest
- Forfeiture
- Conveyance
- Intermeddling
- Trustee de son tort
- Spanish Dollar
- Submission of no case to answer
15.2 Keywords
- Leasehold
- Fraud
- Conspiracy
- Intermeddling
- Singapore
- Property Law
16. Subjects
- Land Law
- Trusts
- Torts
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Landlord and Tenant
- Trust Law
- Tort Law