Court rejects bid by alleged wife, son to inherit RM14.4mil estate

 The appellate court rules that claims of customary marriage and biological ties to a Kedah businessman lack credible evidence.

The Court of Appeal judges said the disputed documents and hearsay were insufficient to prove inheritance rights. (File pic)

PUTRAJAYA:

A mother and son failed in their bid to be recognised as lawful heirs to a Kedah businessman’s RM14.4 million estate after the Court of Appeal ruled that they had failed to prove a valid customary marriage or a biological relationship with the deceased.

A three-member bench, chaired by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid, unanimously dismissed the appeal by SSL and YKC, who claimed SSL was the businessman’s second wife through a Chinese customary marriage in 1976 and that YKC was their biological son.

Kamal, who delivered the unanimous judgment, said the appellants failed to establish their claims with credible evidence and could not rely on disputed documents and hearsay to secure inheritance rights.

The other judges on the bench were Justices Evrol Mariette Peters and Latifah Tahar, who ordered SSL and YKC to pay RM50,000 in costs to the nine respondents.

The dispute concerned the estate of the businessman, who died intestate in 2017, leaving behind assets estimated at RM14.4 million.

The appellants sought to be declared beneficiaries of the estate, but the High Court in Alor Setar had earlier found their claims unproven.

Affirming that decision, Kamal said SSL remained legally married to another man, SK, from 1973 until his death in 1997, with no evidence that the marriage had ever been dissolved.

He said SSL and SK continued their relationship and even had a fifth child together in 1987, contradicting her claim that she had entered into a customary marriage with the deceased in 1976.

The bench also found that amending YKC’s birth certificate to name the deceased as his father was procedurally defective because it did not comply with the requirement for a joint application by the mother under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957.

Kamal said SSL’s decision not to testify was also significant because she was the central figure in the marriage and paternity claims.

The court agreed with the trial judge that an adverse inference could be drawn from this as her evidence would likely not have supported the appellants’ case.

The bench also noted that the appellants failed to produce DNA evidence to establish YKC’s biological relationship with the deceased, despite having the opportunity.

Kamal said the respondents had presented consistent and credible evidence, while the appellants had failed to discharge the legal burden required to prove their claims.

Joshua Kevin and Leng Wie Mun appeared for the respondents, while Irham Redzuan, Samsul Nizam Sohhimi and Ainunhawa Azhar represented the appellants. - FMT