State of Johor v. Tunku Alam Shah ibni Tunku Abdul Rahman, (2005), 9 ITELR 1 (Singapore High Court)
This Singapore decision demonstrates how estate litigation can be a fascinating mix of facts and law.
In 1895, Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor ("Bakar") made a Will (the "Will") calling some of his property 'state property' and leaving it to his son and heir, Tunku Ibrahim ("Ibrahim"), 'for his use and possession as Sovereign Ruler'.
Ibrahim succeeded his father as Sultan for more than 60 years, dying in 1959.
One of the 'state properties' mentioned in the Will was real estate known as Tyersdall. In 1990, Tyersdall was compulsorily acquired by the state, in return for an assessed $25 million in compensation. The issue was who should get that compensation. The candidates were:
1. The great-grandson of Bakar and current Sultan (the "Plaintiff"), wanting the money paid either to him as head of state or directly to the state ; and
2. A great-great-grandson of Bakar and other relatives, all of whom claimed an interest as beneficiaries of Bakar's Estate.
The essence of the second group's claim was that Bakar's Will violated Muslim law. Since Bakar was a Muslim when the Will was made, whether a Sultan or a commoner, he could not contravene Muslim law. The Court, without difficulty, decided that Muslim law could not apply to overrule the civil law of Singapore in 1895.
In 1895, English common law was in force in Singapore. Bakar intended to bequeath Tyersall to the reigning Sultan. The Plaintiff won.
All in all, quite a mix of fact and law and well worth the read.
Thanks for reading.
Sean Graham
