H binti T (deceased) had placed in trust a parcel of land upon which was located a two-storey shop building. Matters were complicated as the building was still subject to a rent agreement involving a third party and, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, the deceased had passed away. This did not preclude the land and building from becoming subject of the deceased's will, however.
The land and building had been devised to the first respondent via the appellant as an intermediary. The Court found that, even though the land and building had been devised by the deceased to the first respondent, before the will had become valid, the deceased had already devised the land and building to another party, thereby rendering the endowment to the first respondent invalid, pursuant to arts 194(2) and 217(3) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. That the first respondent had also been collecting rent monies pursuant to the pre-existing rent agreement from July 2002-July 2007 meant that he was ordered by the Court to transfer those monies to the trustee body.
The Court also found the appellant's claim lacked clarity and cause and, therefore, dismissed it. It also found, however, that the respondents' claim that the appellant lacked the standing to lodge a claim was incorrect. This was because it was immaterial morally and customarily that at the time of executing the trust there was not yet an official notice of appointment or power of attorney from the trustee (nazir). Indeed, it was custom in the area that a trusted person would manage religious property, meaning that the appellant had the capacity to look after property subject of the endowment to ensure it did not go missing, as well as the capacity to lodge a claim.
The Court also disagreed with the lower court, which found that the notice of endowment (dated 12 September 1998) was the same as a will, which, based on this line of reasoning, meant there were two different wills. The Court found this inherently incorrect, both in terms of the purpose of the notice, as well as in terms of the notice's applicability.
The Court deemed the first respondent lacked the standing to manage the land subject of the trust and ordered him to transfer the land to the trustee body.