CHARITIES

Charities - Administration - Reservation - Charitable Haji Salleh v Haji Abdullah [1935] MLJ 26, High Court, Straits Settlements

This case concerned the administration of a charitable trust. The trust was created by a will in 1920, and the trustees were Haji Salleh and Haji Abdullah. The trust deed provided that the trustees should "apply the income of the trust fund for the benefit of the poor and needy Muslims in the town of Kuala Lumpur."

In 1934, Haji Abdullah applied to the court to be discharged as a trustee. He argued that he was no longer able to carry out his duties as a trustee because he had moved to another state. The court granted Haji Abdullah's application, and he was discharged as a trustee.

The court then appointed a new trustee, Haji Ismail. Haji Ismail applied to the court for directions on how to administer the trust fund. The court held that the trustees should apply the income of the trust fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy Muslims in Kuala Lumpur.



Charities - Administration - Reservation - Wakaf Haji Salleh v Haji Abdullah [1935] MLJ 26, High Court, Straits Settlements

This case concerned the administration of a wakaf. A wakaf is a Muslim religious endowment. In this case, the wakaf was created by a will in 1920. The will provided that the wakaf property should be used to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy Muslims in Kuala Lumpur.

In 1934, Haji Abdullah applied to the court to be discharged as the mutawalli (trustee) of the wakaf. He argued that he was no longer able to carry out his duties as mutawalli because he had moved to another state. The court granted Haji Abdullah's application, and he was discharged as mutawalli.

The court then appointed a new mutawalli, Haji Ismail. Haji Ismail applied to the court for directions on how to administer the wakaf property. The court held that the mutawalli should apply the wakaf property to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy Muslims in Kuala Lumpur.



Attorney General



Charities - Attorney General - Necessary party - Joinder Chua Sin Ghee v Chua Tian Choon [1933] MLJ 259, High Court, Straits Settlements

This case concerned the administration of a charitable trust. The trust was created by a will in 1920, and the trustees were Chua Sin Ghee and Chua Tian Choon. The trust deed provided that the trustees should "apply the income of the trust fund for the benefit of the poor and needy in the town of Kuala Lumpur."

In 1933, Chua Sin Ghee applied to the court to be discharged as a trustee. He argued that he was no longer able to carry out his duties as a trustee because he had fallen on hard times. The court granted Chua Sin Ghee's application, and he was discharged as a trustee.

The court then appointed a new trustee, Chua Tian Choon. Chua Tian Choon applied to the court for directions on how to administer the trust fund. The court held that the trustees should apply the income of the trust fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy in Kuala Lumpur.

The court also held that the Attorney General was a necessary party to the proceedings. The court reasoned that the Attorney General had a duty to protect the interests of the poor and needy, and that he could only do so if he was joined as a party to the proceedings.



Charities - Attorney General - Necessary party - Joinder - Charitable fund - Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956, s 9 Lee Eng Teh & Ors v Teh Thiang Seong & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 42, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

This case concerned the administration of a charitable fund. The fund was created by a will in 1955, and the trustees were Lee Eng Teh, Lee Eng Hock, and Lee Eng Huat. The trust deed provided that the trustees should "apply the income of the fund for the benefit of the poor and needy in the town of Kuala Lumpur."

In 1967, Lee Eng Teh applied to the court to be discharged as a trustee. He argued that he was no longer able to carry out his duties as a trustee because he had fallen on hard times. The court granted Lee Eng Teh's application, and he was discharged as a trustee.

The court then appointed a new trustee, Teh Thiang Seong. Teh Thiang Seong applied to the court for directions on how to administer the fund. The court held that the trustees should apply the income of the fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy in Kuala Lumpur.

The court also held that the Attorney General was a necessary party to the proceedings. The court reasoned that the Attorney General had a duty to protect the interests of the poor and needy, and that he could only do so if he was joined as a party to the proceedings.

The Attorney General argued that the trustees should not be allowed to apply the income of the fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy. He argued that the fund should be used to build a school for the poor and needy. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument and held that the trustees were entitled to apply the income of the fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy.





Charities - Attorney General - Necessary party - Joinder - Government Proceedings Ordinance 1956, s 9 Lee Chick Yet v Chen Siew Hee & Ors [1977] 2 MLJ 218, High Court, Ipoh

This case concerned the administration of a charitable trust. The trust was created by a will in 1955, and the trustees were Lee Chick Yet, Lee Eng Hock, and Lee Eng Huat. The trust deed provided that the trustees should "apply the income of the trust fund for the benefit of the poor and needy in the town of Kuala Lumpur."

In 1977, Lee Chick Yet applied to the court to be discharged as a trustee. He argued that he was no longer able to carry out his duties as a trustee because he had fallen on hard times. The court granted Lee Chick Yet's application, and he was discharged as a trustee.

The court then appointed a new trustee, Chen Siew Hee. Chen Siew Hee applied to the court for directions on how to administer the trust fund. The court held that the trustees should apply the income of the trust fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy in Kuala Lumpur.

The court also held that the Attorney General was a necessary party to the proceedings. The court reasoned that the Attorney General had a duty to protect the interests of the poor and needy, and that he could only do so if he was joined as a party to the proceedings.

The Attorney General argued that the trustees should not be allowed to apply the income of the trust fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy. He argued that the fund should be used to build a school for the poor and needy. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument and held that the trustees were entitled to apply the income of the trust fund to provide food, clothing, and shelter to the poor and needy.





In conclusion, these cases show that the courts in Malaysia are committed to protecting the interests of charities and the poor and needy. The courts have held that the Attorney General is a necessary party to any proceedings involving charities, and that the Attorney General has a duty to protect the interests of the poor and needy.