Safie bin Jantan v Zaiton binte Adom: Unjust Enrichment & Syariah Court Orders in Family Law
In Safie bin Jantan v Zaiton binte Adom and Nafsiah bte Wagiman, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard two civil appeals regarding a claim of unjust enrichment. Zaiton transferred money to Safie, who was married to Nafsiah at the time, to repay a loan on a flat. After Safie and Nafsiah divorced, the Syariah Court ordered Nafsiah to receive 100% of the net sale proceeds of the flat. Zaiton then commenced a civil action claiming the money from Safie and/or Nafsiah. The High Court found Safie liable to pay Zaiton for unjust enrichment, and the Appellate Division dismissed both appeals, finding Safie liable to return the money to Zaiton.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Civil appeals concerning unjust enrichment and the interplay between Syariah Court orders and civil claims in a family law context. Appeals dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safie bin Jantan | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Chishty Syed Ahmed Jamal, Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed |
| Zaiton binte Adom | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Chishty Syed Ahmed Jamal, Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed |
| Nafsiah bte Wagiman | Respondent | Individual | Successful defence against appeal | Won | Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Debbie Ong Siew Ling | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | No |
| Quentin Loh Sze-On | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chishty Syed Ahmed Jamal | A C Syed & Partners |
| Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed | A Mohamed Hashim |
| Sofia Bakhash | A Mohamed Hashim |
| Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen | M Shafiq Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- Z handed S a cheque and cashier’s order totalling $205,359.80.
- S was still married to N at that time.
- S handed the cheque and cashier’s order to N, who deposited the Moneys into her CPF account.
- N then withdrew $125,717.15 from her CPF account to repay the loan on the Flat.
- The Syariah Court granted a divorce decree on 4 December 2018.
- The Syariah Court ordered that N was to receive 100% of the net sale proceeds of the Flat.
- Z commenced a civil action claiming $205,359.80 from S and/or N.
5. Formal Citations
- Safie bin Jantan v Zaiton bte Adom and another and another appeal, , [2023] SGHC(A) 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| S and N married. | |
| Z handed S a cheque and cashier’s order totalling $205,359.80. | |
| N knew that the source of the Moneys was Z. | |
| N commenced divorce proceedings against S in the Syariah Court. | |
| Syariah Court granted a divorce decree. | |
| S applied for variation of the 2018 Order. | |
| S married Z. | |
| Syariah Court varied part of the 2018 order. | |
| Z commenced a civil action in Originating Summons No 1014 of 2020. | |
| Appeals dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court held that S was unjustly enriched by the Moneys and is liable to return the moneys to Z.
- Category: Substantive
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs Syariah Court
- Outcome: The court held that the Syariah Court exercising matrimonial jurisdiction over divorcing parties had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive rights of a third party to the divorce proceedings.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Unjust Enrichment
- Institutional Constructive Trust
- Remedial Constructive Trust
- Presumed Resulting Trust
- Quistclose Trust
- Proprietary Restitution
- Equitable Lien
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDA v UDB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction to determine the substantive rights of a third party to the divorce proceedings. |
| UDA v UDB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1433 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction to determine the substantive rights of a third party to the divorce proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Unjust enrichment
- Syariah Court
- Matrimonial asset
- CPF
- Restitution
- Beneficial ownership
- Variation proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Family Law
- Unjust Enrichment
- Syariah Court
- Singapore
- Civil Appeal
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Restitution
- Trusts
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Restitution
- Unjust enrichment
- Trusts
- Muslim Law