Fauziyah v Singapore Land Authority: Striking Out, Appeal, Adducing Fresh Evidence, Compulsory Acquisition, Interest in Land, State Land, Muslim Law, Charitable Trusts
In Fauziyah Binte Mohd Ahbidin v Singapore Land Authority, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the striking out of the plaintiff's claim related to the compulsory acquisition of land. The plaintiff, Fauziyah Binte Mohd Ahbidin, executrix of Zainal’s Estate, disputed the acquisition, claiming an interest in the land based on Muslim law and a wakaf (charitable trust). The defendants were the Singapore Land Authority, Collector of Land Revenue, and Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore. The court allowed the appeal in part, permitting the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim regarding the Title Claim but upheld the striking out of the Acquisition Challenge Claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against the assistant registrar’s decision to strike out the Title Claim is allowed. The Plaintiff is allowed to amend the Statement of Claim based on the Proposed Statement of Claim. The assistant registrar’s decision to strike out the Acquisition Challenge Claim is upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered striking out a claim regarding compulsory land acquisition, focusing on issues of land interest, Muslim law, and charitable trusts. The appeal was allowed in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore | Defendant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tang Shangjun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Fauziyah Binte Mohd Ahbidin | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Singapore Land Authority | Defendant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tang Shangjun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Collector of Land Revenue | Defendant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Hui Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tang Shangjun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jessie Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Hui Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang Shangjun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jessie Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff is the sole executrix of Zainal’s Estate.
- The dispute concerns the compulsory acquisition of four plots of land.
- Kassim acquired the fee simple in the Land in 1919.
- In 1920 and 1921, Kassim entered into Deeds to establish a wakaf.
- Kassim allegedly made a will in 1932.
- Kassim died in 1935 and was survived by his wife, Mymon, and Zainal.
- In 1962, the Land was vested in the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board.
- In 1987, a notification was published that the Land was required for “general development”.
5. Formal Citations
- Fauziyah bte Mohd Ahbidin (executrix of the estate of Mohamed Ahbideen bin Mohamed Kassim (alias Ahna Mohamed Zainal Abidin bin Kassim), deceased) v Singapore Land Authority and others, Suit No 152 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 123
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kassim acquired the fee simple in the Land. | |
| Kassim, Oona Said, Pana Shaik and Ibrahim entered into an Indenture of Deed. | |
| Kassim, Oona Said, Pana Shaik and Ibrahim entered into another Deed of Settlement. | |
| Kassim allegedly made a will. | |
| Kassim died. | |
| Zainal obtained an order of court for the Land to vest in four individuals as trustees. | |
| The Land was vested in the Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board. | |
| Zainal obtained a grant of letters of administration to Kassim’s estate. | |
| The Land was vested in the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura by operation of s 6 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966. | |
| A notification was published in the Gazette that the Land was required for “general development”. | |
| The State took possession of the Land. | |
| Zainal passed away. | |
| The Plaintiff extracted grant of probate. | |
| The Plaintiff claimed to have subsequently discovered around 2016 that legal title to the Land had become registered in the State. | |
| The Plaintiff wrote to SLA alleging that the Land was “Ancestral Land (of [Zainal] and for his immediate family rights) and must be returned unconditionally”. | |
| SLA replied to state that there was no basis for the Plaintiff’s allegations. | |
| The Plaintiff commenced Suit 152. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal against the AR’s decision to strike out the Title Claim and allowed the Plaintiff to amend the SOC based on the Proposed SOC. The court upheld the AR’s decision to strike out the Acquisition Challenge Claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- No reasonable cause of action
- Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
- Abuse of the process of the court
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 1085
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
- [2012] 4 SLR 546
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
- Appeal
- Outcome: The court allowed the Fresh Evidence, except for Siddiqe’s affidavit, to be admitted.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Adducing fresh evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2019] 2 SLR 341
- [2014] 1 SLR 1175
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133
- [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392
- Compulsory Acquisition
- Outcome: The court upheld the AR’s decision to strike out the Acquisition Challenge Claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Interest in Land
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal against the AR’s decision to strike out the Title Claim and allowed the Plaintiff to amend the SOC based on the Proposed SOC.
- Category: Substantive
- Muslim Law
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal against the AR’s decision to strike out the Title Claim and allowed the Plaintiff to amend the SOC based on the Proposed SOC.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Acquisition was defective and void
- Declaration that title to the Land should be vested in Zainal’s Estate
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration that the Acquisition was defective and void
- Declaration that title to the Land should be vested in Zainal’s Estate
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Land Acquisition
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the three requirements to adduce fresh evidence on appeal: the non-availability requirement, the relevance requirement and the reliability requirement. |
| Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | N/A | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the three requirements in Ladd v Marshall: the “non-availability requirement”, the “relevance requirement” and the “reliability requirement”. |
| Park Regis Hospitality Management Sdn Bhd v British Malayan Trustees Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1175 | N/A | Cited to support the view that a registrar’s appeal against a striking out application falls within the interlocutory end of the spectrum and there was thus a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow the further evidence to be adduced. |
| WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that the judge was not obliged to apply the requirements in Ladd v Marshall concerning a registrar’s appeal to a judge in chambers on a summary judgment application. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392 | N/A | Cited to support the view that the judge in chambers hearing a registrar’s appeal exercises confirmatory, rather than appellate, jurisdiction and rehears the case afresh and is thus entitled to exercise an unfettered discretion, including on the admissibility of fresh evidence. |
| Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1085 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a reasonable cause of action is one with some chance of success, when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold for striking out is high, and the power to strike out a plaintiff’s claim should only be exercised in a “plain and obvious” case. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a claim can be “frivolous or vexatious” if it is “plainly or obviously unsustainable”. |
| Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sukamto Sia and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 277 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that laches is a doctrine of equity that bars a plaintiff’s claim where there has been a “substantial lapse of time coupled with circumstances where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy”. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the striking out procedure is “not meant to be used as a ploy to avoid embarrassing proceedings and/or to evade debatable facts and/or legal arguments”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Muslim and Hindu Endowments Ordinance (Cap 271, 1955 Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed) s 60(1) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compulsory acquisition
- Wakaf
- Hanafi school
- Shafi’i school
- Inter vivos disposition
- Testamentary disposition
- Title Claim
- Acquisition Challenge Claim
- Beneficial interest
- Striking out
15.2 Keywords
- land
- acquisition
- muslim law
- wakaf
- trust
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Land Law | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Syariah | 70 |
| Compulsory Acquisition | 70 |
| Interest in land | 65 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Charitable trusts | 55 |
| Trust Law | 50 |
| State land | 45 |
| Dispute Resolution | 40 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Trusts
- Muslim Law