Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff v Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied: Intervention in Trust Will Dispute
In Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff v Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff, as administrator, and others, to intervene in a concluded matter from 1992 concerning the estate of Syed Ahmad Bin Abdulrahman Bin Ahmat Aljunied. The applicants sought to set aside the original order and rectify the Register of Deeds, arguing defects in the original order and the need to protect their interests in disputed properties. The court, however, declined to grant leave to intervene, citing the extensive lapse of time and complications arising from subsequent orders. The court dismissed the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applicants' summons for leave to intervene in the Original Proceedings, set aside the Original Order, and make consequential rectifications on the Registry of Deeds was dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding an application to intervene in a 25-year-old trust will dispute. The court declined leave to intervene due to the long lapse of time.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Abdul Majid Omar Harharah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kamiliah binte Ali Harharah | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Fatimah Mohamed Hashim Alhabshee | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Abdullah bin Mohd bin Abdullah Alhabshee alias Abdullah Mohammed Abdullah Al-Hebshi | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Harun Bin Syed Hussain Aljunied @ Harun Aljunied | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | |
| Syed Abdulkader Bin Syed Ali @ Syed Abdul Kader Alhadad | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | |
| BMS Hotel Properties Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Syed Salim Alhadad bin Syed Ahmad Alhadad | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Syed Ahmad Alhadad bin Syed Abdulkader Alhadad | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkader Alhadad | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Syed Ibrahim bin Abdulkader Alhadad | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Applicants sought leave to intervene in Original Proceedings to set aside the Original Order.
- The Original Order was obtained ex parte in 1992.
- The Original Order appointed the fourth and fifth respondents as trustees of the Estate.
- The Applicants argued the Original Order was defective and that there was a failure to make full and frank disclosure.
- The first and second respondents were the present trustees of the Estate.
- The Disputed Properties were subject of ongoing dispute between the parties.
- The Applicants sought declarations in Suit 263 that their leasehold interest in the Disputed Properties had not been extinguished.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff (administrator of the estates of Syed Mohamad bin Hashim bin Mohamad Alhabshi and others) and othersvHarun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and others, Originating Summons No 1122 of 1992 (Summons No 600039 of 2015), [2017] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Will of Syed Ahmad Bin Abdulrahman Bin Ahmat Aljunied dated | |
| Deed of Appointment of New Trustees dated | |
| Original Order granted in Originating Summons No 1122 of 1992 | |
| Former trustees purportedly conveyed interests in the Disputed Properties to BMS Hotel Properties Pte Ltd | |
| High Court decision in Syed Salim Alhadad v Dickson Holdings Pte Ltd | |
| High Court decision in Koh Beng Swee v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir Alhadad | |
| Subsequent Order made in Originating Summons No 69 of 1998 | |
| Notice of Appointment of New Trustees filed | |
| BMS Hotel Properties Pte Ltd struck off the Register of Companies | |
| Consolidated Suit No 263 of 2010 filed | |
| Applicants sought leave to intervene in Original Proceedings | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Intervention in Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the applicants could not intervene in the original proceedings due to the considerable lapse of time and other factors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Timeliness of intervention application
- Interest in the subject matter
- Just and convenient to allow intervention
- Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the applicants' intervention under its inherent jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Interests of justice
- Necessity of intervention
- Due process and fairness
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to Intervene
- Setting Aside of Original Order
- Consequential Rectifications to the Registry of Deeds
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Leave to Intervene
- Setting Aside of Court Order
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Trusts and Estates
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Salim Alhadad v Dickson Holdings Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 228 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a party can challenge the title of the landlord and intervene in proceedings if they have sufficient interest and the original order was procured improperly. |
| Koh Beng Swee v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir Alhadad | High Court | Yes | [1997] SGHC 317 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that parties whose interests are adversely affected should intervene in OS 1122 of 1992 before applying to set aside the 1992 Order made against the properties. |
| Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff v Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 386 | Singapore | Related case where the plaintiffs sought a declaration that their leasehold interests in the Disputed Properties subsisted and had not been validly terminated. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited for the broad objects of the joinder provisions under O 15 r 6(2) and guidance on how the court’s inherent jurisdiction to allow intervention should be exercised. |
| Attorney-General v Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 915 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions under which a non-party can be added to a cause or matter under O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii). |
| United Asian Bank Bhd v Personal representative of Roshammah (decd) & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 MLJ 327 | N/A | Cited for the rule that an intervention application would be in time only if it was filed before the final order had been made. |
| Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Staghorn Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 MLJ 847 | N/A | Cited for the test of whether “anything remained to be done” to determine if an application for intervention was made “at any stage of the proceedings”. |
| The Duke of Buccleuch | N/A | Yes | [1892] P 201 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an application for intervention would qualify as being made “at any stage of the proceedings” “as long as anything remains to be done in the case”. |
| Chan Kern Miang v Kea Resources | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited to show that intervention would result in parties having to “literally start all over again”. |
| Family Food Court v Seah Boon Lock | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 272 | Singapore | Cited for the touchstone of the court’s inherent jurisdiction to permit intervention or joinder is the “strict criterion” of necessity. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court’s inherent jurisdiction “should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear need for it and the justice of the case so demands”. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is an existing rule, “a party which urges the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction or power to circumvent the rule has to show that it is in the interests of justice to disregard the rule”. |
| Lee Siew Ngug v Lee Brothers (Wee Kee) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1093 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is an existing rule, “a party which urges the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction or power to circumvent the rule has to show that it is in the interests of justice to disregard the rule”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trustees Act (Cap 337) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intervention
- Original Order
- Trustees
- Estate
- Disputed Properties
- Inherent Jurisdiction
- Ex Parte
- Leave to Intervene
15.2 Keywords
- Intervention
- Trust
- Estate
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
- High Court
- Property
- Trustees
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Joinder of Parties | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Estate Law | 70 |
| Trustees | 65 |
| Trust Law | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
| Inherent Power of the Court | 55 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Procedural Law | 45 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
| Affidavits | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Trust Law
- Property Law
- Intervention