IN T H E APPEAL BOARD

lADMINISTRATION O F MUSLIM L A W ACT)

Appeal C a s e No. 0312007

Between

LUBNA BTE S H E I K H O T H M A N - Appellant

(NRIC NO. S3041620A)

And

KHALID BIN O M A R ABDAT - Respondent

(NRIC NO. S2176972Z)

In the m a t t e r o f S y a r i a h S u m m o n s N o . 29466

LUBNA B T E S H E I K H OTHMAN - Plaintiff

(NRIC NO. S3041620A)

And

K H A L I D BIN O M A R ABDAT - Defendant

(NRIC NO. S2176972Z)

b Before t h e H o n o u r a b l e M e m b e r s : In O p e n H e a r i n g
Shaiffudin bin S a r u w a n (Chairman)
Mohd Kanlal bin M o k h t a r (Member)
Jalaluddin bin H a s s a n (Member)

Heard on 2 7 t h ~ u ~ u 2s0 0t 7

Parties
Mastan Marican bin Marican ( M M M a r i c a n & Co.) f o r L u b n a bte S h e i k h
Othman
Halijah M o h a m a d ( H a l i j a h M o h a m d & C o . ) f o r K h a l i d bin O m a r A b d a t
 ORDER OF THE APPEAL BOARD

U P O N T H E A P P E A L No. 0312007 A N D UPON H E A R I N G C o u n s e l f o r t h e

A p p e l l a n t a n d C o u n s e l h r t h e R e s p o n d e n t , it is A D J U D G E D T H A T :

1. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l and r z s p o n d e n t ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l in r e l a t i o n t o t h e

a w a r d o f nc!fkuh itlduh is d i s m i s s e d . T h e order o f t h e learned Senior
P r e s i d e n t a w a r d i n g 17ufk~111
i ~ / d u l lto t h e a p p e l l a n t in t h e sun1 o f S$30001-
is a f f i r m e d . T h e p a y m e n t s h a l l b e m a d e in full w i t h i n o n e i n o n t h f r o m t h e
date o f this Order.

2. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l o n n ~ u t u u hi s p a r t l y a l l o w e d a n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s
c r o s s - a p p e a l o n t h e saine m a t t e r i s d i s m i s s e d . T h e respondent shall pay
m u t a a h t o t h e a p p e l l a n t at t h e r a t e of S $ 8 / - p e r d a y f o r 21 y e a r s o f
marriage. T h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f ~nlrtucth p a y a b l e is S $ 6 1 ,3201-. The
p a y m e n t s h a l l b e m a d e in full w i t h i n o n e month f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s
Order.

3. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l and r e s p o n d e n t ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l o n t h e d i v i s i o n o f

t h e f l a t a t B l k 6 1 1 B e d o k R e s e r v o i r R o a d # 0 4 - 1 144 a r e d i s m i s s e d . The
o r d e r o f t h e l e a r n e d S e n i o r P r e s ~ d e n tthat t h e net s a l e p r o c e e d s o f t h e f l a t
- less all l i a b i l i t i e s a n d d e d u c t i o n i n t o t h e p a r t i e s C P F a c c o u n t s - shall be
d i v i d e d 60% t o t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d 4 0 % t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t i s a f f i r m e d . T h e
flat s h a l l b e s o l d in t h e o p e n m a r k e t w i t h i n 6 m o n t h s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s
Order.

4. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l f o r a 50% s h a r e in t h e o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s , i n s u r a n c e
p o l i c i e s , C P F m o n i e s a n d b a n k a c c o u n t s o r in t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s u b m i s s i o n a
l u m p s u m p a y m e n t of S $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - i s h e r e b y d i s m i s s e d . T h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s
appeal against t h e order o f the learned Senior President awarding the
 a p p e l l a n t a l u m p s u m p a y m e n t o f S$200,0001- i s a l l o w e d a n d t h e o r d e r i s
d u l y s e t a s i d e a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r s a r e h e n c e f o r t h m a d e in lieu -

(i) T h e c o m m e r c i a l u n i t at # @ ! - I 0 9 R o x y B u i l d i n g s h a l l b e s o l d in t h e
o p e n m a r k e t w i t h i n 6 m o n t h s f r o m t h e d a t e of t h i s o r d e r . The
proceeds o f sale - less all l i a b i l i t i e s a t t a c h e d t o t h e s a i d u n i t and
o t h e r e x p e n s e s incidental t o t h e s a l e - shall be divided 30% t o the
a p p e l l a n t a n d 7 0 % t o t l ~ cr e s p o n d e n t .

(ii) T h e h o u s e h o l d f u r n i t u r e and f i t t i n g s in t h e flat a t Blk 61 1 B e d o k

R e s e r v o i r Road ft04-1 144 s h a l l b e s o l d in t h e o p e n m a r k e t and t h e
net p r o c e e d s d i v i d e d e q u a l l y b e t w e e n t h e t w o p a r t i e s .

(iii) The appellant's claims for 5 0 % o f t h e s a l e p r o c e e d s of the

I n d o n e s i a n p r o p e r t y , 50% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s CPF m o n i e s o r
S$50,0001- a s c o m p e n s a t i o n t h e r e o f . S $ 1 2 6 , 0 0 0 / - a s c o r n p e n s a t i o n
for not working during the marriage, 5 0 % share in t h e respondent's
i n s u r a n c e p o l i c e s , bank a c c o u n t s and s h a r e s , 5 0 % s h a r e in t h e J e l i t a
I1 b u s i n e s s a n d r e n t a l s in t h e R o x v B u i l d i n g u n i t , and 5 0 % s h a r e in
t h e s a l e p r o c e e d s o f t h e flat at Blk 2 3 6 A S e r a n g o o n A v e 3 # 0 3 - 1 4 7 ,
a r e hereby dismissed.

D a t e d t h i s 28"' clay o f A p r i l 2 0 0 8
,..!

----------------------.-.-- --- - --------.- ---

M o h d Kanial b i n M o k h t a r
 IN T H E A P P E A L B O A R D
(ADMINISTRATION OF MUSLIM LAW ACT)

.4ppeal C a s e No. 0312007

Between

LUBNA BTE SHEIKH OTHMAN - Appellant

(NRIC NO. S3041620A)

And

KHALID BIN OMAR ABDAT - Respondent

(NRIC NO. S2176972Z)

In the m a t t e r o f S y a r i a h S u m m o n s No. 2 9 4 6 6

LUBNA B T E SHEIKH OTHMAN - Plaintiff

(NRIC NO. S3041620A)

And

KHALID BIN OMAR ABDAT - Defendant

(NRIC NO. S2176972Z)

C B e f o r e the H o n o u r a b l e M e m b e r s : In O p e n H e a r i n g
S h a i f f u d i n bin S a r u w a n (Chairman)
M o h d K a m a l bin Mokhtar (Member)
Jalaluddin bin Hassan (Member)

Heard on 27'" A u g u s t 2 0 0 7

Pal-ties
Mastan Marican bin M a r i c a n ( M M M a r i c a n & C o . ) f o r L u b n a b t e S h e i k h
Othrnan
Halijah Mohalnad (Halijah M o h a m d & C o . ) f o r Khalid bin O m a r A b d a t
 GROUNDS OF DEClSlON

T h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h e respondent were married o n 1 1 A p r 8 5 . They

h a v e two c h i l d r e n f r o m the m a r r i a g e n a m e l y Nadiah B t e K h a l i d ( d a t e o f birth
12 M a y 8 6 ) a n d Helmi Bin Khalid ( d a t e o f birth 1 7 A u g 8 8 ) . They were
d i v o r c e d o n 1 2 O c t 0 6 . Pursuant to the d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e president o f
t h e S y a r i a h C o u r t m a d e the f o l l o w i n g a n c i l l a r y o r d e r s o n 12 O c t 06-

I. T h e r e s p o n d e n t shall pay $30001- as n a f k a h i d d a h .

..
11. T h e respondent shall pay $383251- a s m u t a a h .
...
111. P a y m e n t o f the nafkah iddah and m u t a a h to b e paid in instalment
o f $10001- per m o n t h .
iv. B o t h p a r t i e s t o h a v e joint c u s t o d y o f t h e t w o c h i l d r e n w i t h c a r e
a n d c o n t r o l o f Nadiah B t e Khalid to t h e p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e c a r e and
c o n t r o l o f Helmi Bin Khalid b e i n g given to t h e r e s p o n d e n t .

2. T h e l e a r n e d P r e s i d e n t in a subsequent h e a r i n g m a d e a s u p p l e m e n t a r y
o r d e r o n 9 J a n 0 7 that the plaintiff ( a p p e l l a n t ) s h a l l b e entitled to
" ...$200,0001- a s c o m p e n s a t i o n from t h e w h o l e o f t h e m a t r i m o n i a l asset
b e t w e e n them d u r i n g t h e period o f their marriage".

3. T h e a p p e l l a n t h a s n o w lodged a n appeal a g a i n s t t h e d e c i s i o n o f the

C
learned P r e s i d e n t o n t h e q u a n t u m o f t h e nafkah i d d a h , m u t a a h and t h e
a p p o r t i o n m e n t o f her s h a r e s in t h e m a t r i m o n i a l a s s e t s a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e
c o u r s e o f t h e m a r r i a g e . T h e appellant s o u g h t a variation o f t h e a b o v e o r d e r s
as f o l l o w s -

1. N a f k a h iddah in t h e total s u m o f $90001- (at $30001- per

month);
..
11. M u t a a h at t h e rate o f $201- per d a y ( t o t a l i n g $153,0001-) f o r
t h e d u r a t i o n o f the marriage;
 iii. 50% share in unit #Ol-109, Roxy Building and alternatively
the option to thc respondent to buy over the appellant's 50%
share at market price;
iv. 50% share o f all the value o f the ~rlatrilnonialassets including
the respondent's C P F monies, savings, insurance, household
items, rental fees from the Roxy Building unit, s a l e proceeds
of an Indonesian property valued at $202,755.96 and the two
business entities Jelita I and Jelita 11.
v. 80% share o f the sale proceeds o f the matrimonial tlat at Blk
6 1 1 Bedok Reservoir Road #04- I 144.

4. T h e respondent has lodged a cross-appeal against t h e decision o f the

C
learned President on the awards on nafkah iddah, mutaah and the
supplementary order on the m a t r i ~ n o n i a l assets. T h e orders sought by the
respondent are as follows -

I. T h e respondent shall pay nafkah iddah o f $1,800/-;

..
11. The respondent shall pay mutaah o f $1 9,162.50 (at $2.50 per
day) for the duration o f the marriage;
. ..
111. The matrilnonial flat at Blk 61 1 Bedok Reservoir Road #04-1 144
to b e sold in the open market and the net proceeds to b e divided
on the basis of 2 0 % to the appellant and 8 0 % to the respondent;
iv. The UOB overdraft amounting to $300,0001-, the debt of
$293,000/- owing from the respondent to Md Abdat and t h e gift
of $400,000/- shall be deducted fl-om the value o f $1.1 million
affixed to the Roxy Building property. T h e balance amount shall
then be divided on the basis of 20% to the appellant and 80% to
the respondent.
 T H E DECISION O F T H E S Y A R I A H COURT

(i) Nafkah Iddah

5. T h e learned President took into a c c o u n t the fact that d e s p i t e the

pronouncelnent o f the talak on 28 Nov 0 5 , t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s c o n t i n u e d to
p r o v i d e m a i n t e n a n c e t o the appellant and h i s children up to t h e d a t e o f t h e
divorce hearing. He considered that this meant that the a p p e l l a n t w a s
provided with m a i n t e n a n c e even t h o u g h the period o f iOdcrl1 w a s o v e r . The
learned President regarded t h e m a i n t e n a n c e provided by t h e r e s p o n d e n t post-
2 8 Nov 0 5 a s a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e m a i n t e n a n c e that h e h a s been p r o v i d i n g
C
f o r t h e appellant a n d h i s c h i l d r e n . A s s u c h , h e ruled that t h e r e s p o n d e n t w a s
still obligated t o pay n q f k a h i d d a h . H e w a s o f t h e o p i n i o n that the sum o f
$90001- sought b y the appellant a s b e i n g u n r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e na,fkal~i d d a l ~
i s s p e c i f i c to h e r a n d i s s e p a r a t e froin t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m a i n t e n a n c e . H e ruled
that under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e sum o f $30001- (at $10001- p e r m o n t h )
constituted a r e a s o n a b l e a w a r d .

(ii) Mutaah

6. T h e learned President rejected t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p r a y e r f o r mz4tual1 at a

rate o f $20!- p e r d a y on the b a s i s that this o f f e n d s the j u r i d i c a l basis f o r
mutaah payment. H e reasoned t h a t nzlctaalz i s a c o n s o l a t o r y gift w h i c h t h e
h u s b a n d h a s to m a k e t o the wife f o r d i v o r c i n g her. H e a l s o p o i n t e d o u t that a
d i v o r c e o u g h t not to b e used a s a m e a n s to r e a p material g a i n s o r a s a forum
to take revenge. He also took into a c c o u n t that the r e s p o n d e n t had not
neglected his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t and t h e i r children
d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f t h e m a r r i a g e . On a similal- v e i n , h e a l s o rejected t h e
r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r a y e r that the a w a r d o f rnutcrah should be at the r a t e o f $ 1 . 5 0
p e r d a y on the b a s i s that t h e r e s p o n d e n t is a man o f s u b s t a n t i a l m e a n s . All
c o n s i d e r e d , t h e l e a r n e d President c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that t h e r e a s o n a b l e
award for ml4rctah should b e at t h e rate o f $51- p e r d a y , m a k i n g t h e total
a m o u n t payable at $38,3251-.
 (iii) The niatrinzotzial flat at Blk 611 Bedok Reservoir Road #04-1144

7. T h e learned President did not i n c l u d e a n o r d e r o n the B e d o k Reservoir

Road flat in h i s order o f court dated 12 O c t 0 6 a n d in his s u p p l e m e n t a r y
order d a t e d 7 Jan 0 7 . H e clarified that h e h a d i n t e n d e d t o a w a r d t h e
appellant 6 0 % o f the net s a l e proceeds o f the flat a f t e r it w a s s o l d in the o p e n
market. H e a l s o clarified that when h e made t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y order
awarding the appellant $200,0001- from the o t h e r m a t r i m o n i a l a s s e t s , this
award w a s made over a n d a b o v e t h e a w a r d on t h e B e d o k R e s e r v o i r R o a d flat.

e (iv) The nratrimonial flat at B l k 236A Seratzgoon Ave 3 #03-147

8. T h e said flat had been sold s o m e t i m e in 1995. T h e a p p e l l a n t sought an

award o f 5 0 % o f the sale p r o c e e d s o f t h e flat w h i c h s h e c l a i m e d was sold for
$409,000/- and the e n t i r e a m o u n t had been put i n t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s bank
account. T h e respondent o n the other h a n d a s s e r t e d that t h e m o n i e s had been
used t o w a r d s the p u r c h a s e of the present house, h i s b u s i n e s s e s and
investments. T h e learned P r e s i d e n t did not m a k e a n y o r d e r on the S e r a n g o o n
flat b e c a u s e h e felt that the m o n i e s had been used t o w a r d s t h e benefit a n d
with the consent o f both parties a n d t h e i r f a m i l y . H e w a s o f t h e opinion that
the a p p e l l a n t had consented t o let the r e s p o n d e n t used the m o n i e s a s h e s a w

6" fit f o r the benefit o f the f a m i l y .

(v) Other matrinzonial assets, insurance policies, CPF monies and others

9. T h e appellant s o u g h t a 5 0 % s h a r e in t h e f o l l o w i n g m a t r i m o n i a l assets
c o m p r i s i n g (i) the c o m m e r c i a l u n i t at # 0 1 - 0 3 G u t h r i e B u i l d i n g , 1 5 0 Changi
R o a d ( G u t h r i e u n i t ) , (ii) t h e c o m m e r c i a l unit a t # 0 1 - 1 0 9 R o x y Building
( R o x y unit), ( i i i ) the r e s p o n d e n t ' s savings a c c o u n t s , ( i v ) the r e s p o n d e n t ' s
C P F monies, ( v ) various f u r n i t u r e s and f i t t i n g s a n d ( v i ) i n s u r a n c e policies.
T h e learned S e n i o r President s t a t e d that o n the m a t e r i a l s before him, he w a s
unable t o determine t h e actual worth o f t h e s e a s s e t s . A s s u c h , h e c a m e t c the
conclusion that the appellant s h o u l d be given $200,0001- r e p r e s e n t i n g her
 s h a r e in t h e s e a s s e t s . He d e r i v e d at his figure a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g that at least
9 0 % o f t h e a s s e t s w e r e from the r e s p o n d c n t ' s e f f o r t s a l o n e .

DEClSION O F THE BOARD

(i) N a f k a h Idduk

10. T h e a p p e l l a n t s o u g h t S$<)OOO/- as nafkall iddtrlz. S h e a r g u e d that s h e

had been a loyal and faithful w i f e and mother o f t h e i r t w o c h i l d r e n for the
d u r a t i o n o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e which spanned 21 years. S h e claimed that the
d i v o r c e would n o w put her wit11 no means o f i n c o m e o r s k i l l s t o g o into t h e
w o r k f o r c e . T h e d i v o r c e had been initiated by the r e s p o n d e n t a n d h a s left h e r

b in a s t a t e o f h e l p l e s s n e s s that is now coinpounded by h e r b e i n g d i a g n o s e d

w i t h breast c a n c e r . S h e would now f a c e f u t u r e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s . S h e felt
that t h e q u a n t u m s h e i s s e e k i n g i s fair and e q u i t a b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
a s t h e respondent i s a businessman and i s a m a n o f m e a n s a n d has a c q u i r e d
g r e a t wealth in t h e c o u r s e o f their m a r r i a g e . T h e r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e d that h i s
s o l e s o u r c e o f i n c o m e c o m e s from t h e S $ 8 0 0 0 / - nionthly rental f r o m t h e
commercial unit at #01- 109 R o x y B u i l d i n g ( R o x y B u i l d i n g unit). Further
a f t e r t h e respondent had pronounced the raluk o n 2 8 N o v 05, h e had
c o n t i n u e d t o m a i n t a i n her. p r o v i d e a p l a c e f o r her t o s t a y and p a i d f o r all t h e
h o u s e h o l d bills a n d e x p e n s e s . T h e respondent a r g u e d that u n d e r t h e s e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n o lzafkah i d d u h w a s p a y a b l e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . H e cited t h e

b c a s e o f Asrnalz B e e Br M d Dirz 11. Sclclmat Sarkalvi ( A p p e a l No. 1 1 o,f' 199.5) as

a u t h o r i t y f o r his a r g u m e n t . H o w e v e r , o n a purely c o i n p a s s i o n a t e grounds, he
w a s w i l l i n g t o p a y ~ z a f k a hiddull o f S $ 1 8 0 0 / - .

1 1. T h e learned S e n i o r President had rejected t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m f o r

S $ 9 0 0 0 / - a s nufRalz i d d a h as b c i n g u n d u l y e x c e s s i v e . He had regard to t h e
fact that t h e r e s p o n d e n t had continued t o maintain and s u p p o r t t h e appellant
d e s p i t e h a v i n g u t t e r e d the ralak. H e h o w e v e r took t h i s a s an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t ' s d u t i e s and not specifically as t h e e x e c u t i o n o f his nufkah iddall
o b l i g a t i o n upon d i v o r c e . A s s u c h t h e learned S e n i o r President was o f t h e
 opinion that he w a s still obliged to pay the a p p e l l a n t r-zafkah i d d a h . And
having c o n s i d e r e d all the circurnstances, he was o f t h e o p i n i o n that the
reasonable a m o u n t would be $30001-. Having examined the grounds of
decision of the learned S e n i o r President and having regard to the
circumstances present in this c a s e , w e are in total a g r e e m e n t with his
reasoning. As s u c h , w e dismissed the a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l o n n a j k a h i d d a h .

(ii) Mzitaah

12. T h e appellant s o u g h t that s h e be awarded nzutaah a t t h e r a t e o f S$20/-

per d a y f o r the 2 1 y e a r s o f marriage. She repeated the s a m e a r g u m e n t s f o r
the earlier c l a i m f o r n a f k a h i d d a h . In a d d i t i o n , s h e cited the d e c i s i o n o f the
b learned President M r Z a i n o l Abeedin in a c a s e at t h e S y a r i a h C o u r t w h e r e a
businessman w a s ordered to pay nzutaah at S $ 2 0 / - p e r d a y . T h e total amount
c a m e t o S $ 8 0 , 0 0 0 / - a s the marriage in that case l a s t e d f o r 1 1 y e a r s . The
respondent on t h e other hand submitted that the m u t a a h s h o u l d n o t e x c e e d the
i ~ s u a lS$1.50 p e r d a y . H e argued that he had tolerated the shell o f a m a r r i a g e
longer than h e had wanted for the s a k e o f t h e c h i l d r e n a s t h e y w e r e still
y o u n g at the t i m e . T h e appellant has formal e d u c a t i o n a n d c o u l d support
herself by entering t h e j o b market a s their children a r e n o w o f m a j o r i t y age.
More importantly, t h e respondent claimed that he w a s n o t a m a n o f m e a n s
and his monthly i n c o m e w a s only S$2,8361- a f t e r d e d u c t i n g h i s d e b t s a n d
liabilities. T h e respondent f u r t h e r argued that the s u m o f S $ 2 0 / - p e r day w a s
(Cr inordinately exhorbitant a n d submitted that the a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d not be
allowed to use t h e m e c h a n i s m o f divorce to unjustly e n r i c h e d h e r s e l f .

13. W e agree that divorce proceedings s h o u l d n o t b e used by feuding

parties to vent their a n g e r and frustration, o r t o e n r i c h t h e m s e l v e s . That is
why the c o u r t s a r e a l w a y s wary o f unsubstantiated a n d f r i v o l o u s c l a i m s f o r a
s h a r e in the other p a r t y ' s a s s e t s in order t o j u s t l y e n r i c h t h e m s e l v e s . On the
other hand, t h e court h a s also t o contend w i t h p a r t i e s w h o withheld
information or are reluctant to disclose full d e t a i l s o f t h e i r i n c o m e a n d assets
in order t o frustrate t h e other party. In the f a c e o f t h e s e h u r d l e s , t h e court
 has t o try and a c h i e v e a just and e q u i l a b l e s o l u t i o n . T h e c a s e o f Yusri B i n
Md M o h s e n v. N o o r a i n e Minliaj ( S y a r i a h C o u r t S u ~ n r n o n s29864) c i t e d b y t h e
appellant d o e s not l a y d o w n a n y new legal p r i n c i p l e s with r e g a r d to m u t a a h
p a y m e n t . T h e a m o u n t o f ~sz~rtaah
p a y a b l e b y a husband w o u l d a l w a y s d e p e n d
on a multitude o f factors including the predominant factor of the husband's
m e a n s to m a k e s u c h a p a y m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t w o u l d h a v e to look at
the c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t in e a c h c a s e and then d e c i d e b y a p p l y i n g t h e
a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s b e f o r e ~ t . As t h e r e a r e n o g r o u n d s o f
d e c i s i o n in t h e Y u s r i ' s c a s e , w e w o u l d not b e a b l e t o g l e a n t h e s p e c i f i c
r e a s o n s w h y t h e l e a r n e d P r e s i d e n t m a d e such an a w a r d . W h a t t h e c a s e d o e s
represent i s t h a t in certain c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t would not b e u n r e a s o n a b l e t o
a w a r d s u c h a h i g h a m o u n t o f m u t a a h . T h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s i n t h i s present
q,
appeal w o u l d b e w h a t w o u l d b e t h e r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t o f rnutuah.

14. Firstly, w e w o u l d a g r e e with t h e learned S e n i o r P r e s i d e n t o n t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s m e a n s . In t h e f a c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e that w a s a d d u c e d c o n c e r n i n g
his v a r i o u s b u s i n e s s f o r a y s a n d a c t i v i t i e s ; i t is q u i t e c l e a r t h a t h e w a s a m a n
of some means. It w o u l d b e i m p r o b a b l e for a m a n c l a i m i n g to h a v e a s o l e
i n c o m e o f S $ 8 , 0 0 0 / - f r o m r e n t s t o h a v e been a b l e t o i n v o l ~ t eh i m s e l f in t h e s e
m a n y e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h required a c e r t a i n f i n a n c i a l s t a n d i n g .
In a n y e v e n t , w e f i n d his a s s e r t i o n t h a t h e w a s m e r e l y s u r v i v i n g o n just

b S$2,836/- per m o n t h t o b e i n c r e d i b l e . W e h a v e n o h e s i t a t i o n in r e j e c t i n g t h e
r e s p o n d e n t ' s c l a i m a b o u t h i s lack o f m e a n s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e i n c o m e t a x
d o c u m e n t s a d d u c e d b y t h e respondcnt. On a b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s , w e
would a g r e e w i t h t h e l e a r n e d S e n i o r President that o n t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e
e v i d e n c e , the r e s p o n d e n t w a s not a man o f insubstantial m e a n s . A s t h e r e is a
lack o f d e t a i l s t h a t m a d e c o m p u t i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s net w o r t h i m p o s s i b l e ,
the Board w o u l d h a v e to t a k e a robust a p p r o a c h in o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a just a n d
holistic result f o r b o t h p a r t i e s . T a k i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h , w e a g r e e with t h e
S e n i o r President t h a t S$30/- per d a y is e x c e s s i v e w h i l e S $ 1 . 5 0 per d a y i s i n
o u r mind i n o r d i n a t e l y u n j u s t . \Ye a r e a l s o o f the o p i n i o n that t h e a m o u n t o f
S$5/- per d a y a w a r d e d b y t h e learned S e n i o r President to b e i n a d e q u a t e u n d e r
 thc circurnstanccs. Having rcgai-tl to all the circui?istances in tht: case, we arc
of t h e opinion and wc ordered t h e respondent to pay ~ ~ l r ~ / n torfl zS $ 8 / - per d a y
for the 21 years o f marriage. T h e total rn~r/atrlz payable is therefore
S$6 1,320/-.

(iii) Blk 6 1 2 B e d o k R e s e r v o i r R o a d # 0 4 - 2 1 4 4

15. The appellant disagreed with the order o f tlie learned Senior President
that s h e b e given 60% o f the ne.t s a l e proceeds o f the Bedok tlat. Instead, s h e
argued that she should get 80'54 o f the net sale proceeds because s h e had m a d e
d direct and indirect contributions towards i t s purchase. T h e respondent
submitted that the appellant sliould only be entit(ed to 26% o f the net s a l e
proceeds. In support of this position, hc subinitted that the appellant had
only contributed S$12,727.90 in CPF monies whereas h e had contributed
S$114,192/- o f his C P F monies towards the flat. In addition to these two
amounts, cash o f S$36,400/- being a portion of the sale proceeds o f their
previous flat at Serangoon was also paid towards t h e purchase o f the Bedok
flat. Therefore, in monetary terms, the respondent had contributed s o m e 9 0 %
towards t h e purchase pricc. Further, the appellant had been given exclusive
possession o f t h e flat after the respondent had uttered the t a l a k .

C
16. We disagree with the respondent's argument concerning the appellant's
monetary contribution being only 10%. T h i s is because she would have a
s h a r e in the the cash cornponelit of S $ 3 6 , 4 0 0 / - which was a portion o f the
sate proceeds frorn the S e r a n g o o r ~flat. In any case, w e are o f the opinion
that her non-monetary contribution would have been substantial as well. We
say this because the appellant had sacrificed her career by agreeing to s t a y at
h o m e and become a full-time housewife. T h i s decision would h a v e been
made for the benefit of the respondent and their children. As such, s h e would
have been unable to contribute financially towards the tlat even if she had
wanted to. Therefore, i t would habe been unjust to apportion entitlements
solely on financial contributions. As we have earlier stated, we would give a
 lot o f w e i g h t to t h e indirect o r n o n - m o n e t a r y c o n t r i b u t i o n s w h i c h the
appellant had made during the 21 years of marriage. Under these
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w e a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n that the 6 0 - 4 0 d i v i s i o n in f a v o u r o f t h e
a p p e l l a n t a w a r d e d by the S e n i o r P r e s i d e n t w a s f a i r a n d e q u i t a b l e and w e
t h e r e f o r e d i s m i s s e d t h e appellant':.; a p p e a l a n d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l .

(v) Other rrtatrint onial assrts, insurance policies, C P F rnorlies and others

17. U n d e r t h i s h e a d o f claini, t h e l e a r n e d S e n i o r P r e s i d e n t o r d e r e d that t h e

r e s p o n d e n t to p a y a l u m p - s u m payment o f S $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - to t h e a p p e l l a n t a s her
s h a r e in t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s o t h e r a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g h i s i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s , CPF

b m o n i e s a n d m o n i e s in v a r i o u s bank a c c o u n t s . H e ordered a lump-sum

p a y m e n t a f t e r h e m a d e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t it w o u l d h a v e b e e n a l m o s t
i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e court o n its o w n to t r y to c o m p u t e a v a l u e f o r t h e s e a s s e t s
w i t h s o m e m e a s u r e o f precision. W e would s u r m i s e t h a t in a r r i v i n g at t h e
S $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - f i g u r e , h e would h a v e m a d e a r o u g h a s s e s s m e n t o f what the
v a r i o u s a s s e t s a r e worth and then a w a r d a p e r c e n t a g e o f that w h i c h h e t h i n k s
is j u s t a n d e q u i t a b l e t o the a p p e l l a n t . 'The a p p e l l a n t had a p p e a l e d a g a i n s t t h i s
d e c i s i o n and h a d s o u g h t 50'Y' o f e a c h a n d e v e r y a s s e t s o f t h e respondent
under this head. S h e also submitted in t h e a l t e r n a t i v e that s h e should b e
a w a r d e d a h i g h e r l ump-sum payirient o f S$500,0001-.

18. W e a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n that the S e n i o r P r e s i d e n t ' s l u m p - s u m award w a s

fundamentally flawed. In d e a l i n g w ~ t ht h i s h e a d o f c l a i m , w e m u s t first
d e t e r m i n e i f t h e v a r i o u s a s s e t s fall w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "property" in
s.52(3)(d) A M L A . T h e said p r o v i s i o n d e f i n e s "property" a s a n y asset
a c q u i r e d b e f o r e m a r r i a g e and s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p r o v e d b y o n e o r b o t h p a r t i e s
d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , o r a n y asset a c q u i r e d a f t e r m a r r i a g e b y o n e o r b o t h
parties. In a d d i t i o n , p r o p e r t y d o e s not i n c l u d e a n y asset ( n o t b e i n g a
m a t r i m o n i a l h o m e ) that h a s been acquired b y g ~ f to r i n h e r i t a n c e a n d h a s not
b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y i m p r o v e d d u r i n g t h e ~ n a r r i a g e . O n l y if t h e assets c o m e
within t h i s d e f i n i t i o n would the issue o f d i v i s i o n b e c o n s i d e r e d . In a w a r d i n g
 a l u m p sum a w a r d o f S $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 , - to the appellant, the S e n i o r President ]nust
h a v e m a d e the a s s u m p t i o n that t h e s e assets refcrred to w e r e all matrimonial
properties and t h e r e f o r e lie must have given a hypothetical v a l u e t o them and
then a s s e s s a p e r c e n t a g e o f that as being the a p p e l l a n t ' s s h a r e . I t is
unt'ortunate that h e d i d not g i v e t h e detailed breakdown o f this in t h e grounds
of decision. In o u r o p i n i o n , if a f i n d i n g is m a d e that o n e o r s o m e o f the
assets referred t o a r e not ~ n a t r i m o n i a l properties, then t h e p r e m i s e for t h e
S$200,000/- a w a r d would fall. A s such w e would h a v e t o look at each
property i n d i v i d u a l l y .

#01-03 G u t h r i e Building

c. 19. T h e appellant had indicated that s h e would not b e p u r s u i n g h e r claim

for a s h a r e in t h e G u t h r i e unit. That is just a s well b e c a u s e in a n y e v e n t , it is
clear on the e v i d e n c e that t h e G u t h r i e unit d o e s not fall within the d e f i n i t i o n
o f property in s . 5 2 ( 3 ) ( d ) A M L A . O u r reasons f o r this a r e a s f o l l o w s . T h e
respondent and h i s business partner. Firdous had s e t u p MIS B e l l a l n t e r i o r s in
1994. Bella l n t e r i o r s had then bought the C u t h r i e unit in 1997. W h e n t h e
partnership in B e l l a l n t e r i o r s e n d e d , i t was ~ n u t u a l l y agreed that Firdous
would t a k e o v e r t h e G u t h r i e unit which w a s then valued at S $ 0 . 5 million
while the respondent would take o v e r the Roxy Building unit which w a s then
valued at S$1.1 nill lion. To even out the i m b a l a n c e in their v a l u e s , t h e
respondent had a l s o assumed two d e b t s attached t o t h e Roxy B u i l d i n g unit.
C
T h e s e w e r e (i) a n overdraft facility o f S $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - with UOB and ( i i ) a loan
of $293,0001- from a relative, o n e Md Abdat.

# O I - 1 0 9 Roxy Buildirzg

20. T h e a p p e l l a n t a s k e d the Board to order that t h e R o x y B u i l d i n g unit b e

sold in the o p e n m a r k e t and that s h e be awarded 5076 o f t h e s a l e p r o c e e d s . I n
the a l t e r n a t i v e , s h e urged t h e Board to o r d e r that t h e r e s p o n d e n t b e g i v e n the
option to buy o v e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s 50%1 s h a r e o f t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e said
unit. T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a r g u m e n t s for this a r e t h r e e fold - ( i ) that s h e had
m a d e direct and indirect contributions into the a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e unit, ( i i ) the
 unit has been generating monthly rentals of $80001- and she had not been
given her share, and (iii) the unit has been fully paid up and is valued at
more than S$1 million. T h e respondent agreed that the unit be sold on
condition that the net proceeds of sale less the liabilities (as highlighted in
paragraph 4.iv.), should be divided as follows - 80% to the respondent and
20% to the appellant.

21. It is clear from the evidence, and it is not disputed by the respondent,
that the Roxy Building unit comes within the definition o f property in
s.52(14) AMLA and a s such it would be subject to division. And in our
mind, it would be more beneficial for both parties i f the R o x y Building unit
6U is sold in the open market and the net proceeds after deducting all the
liabilities attached to the said unit to be divided. As to q u a n t u m of division,
the Board would have to consider the respective contributions - direct and
indirect - made by both parties. The appellant did not a d d u c e evidence of
her direct contribution towards the acquisition of the R o x y Building unit.
However, we have no doubt that there was s o m e form o f indirect contribution
by the appellant in the course o f the 21 years of marriage as t h e respondent
had never, in the course o f these proceedings in the Syariah Court and before
the Board, alleged that the appellant had been wanting in her duties a s a wife
and mother. However, although the appellant's indirect contribution would
entitle her to a share in the Roxy Building unit, her entitlement cannot
amount to a half share o f the unit. On the other hand, w e have to take into
account the respondent's direct contribution towards the acquisition of the
unit. All considered, we ordered that the Roxy Building unit be sold in the
open market within 6 months from the date of this judgment. T h e net
proceeds o f sale, less deduction of all liabilities attached to t h e unit, are to
be divided 30% t o the appellant and 7 0 % to the respondent.

S$126,000/- a s c o m p e n s a t i o n for not working

22. The appellant sought a n order that the respondent p a y h e r S$126,000/-

as compensation for not working throughout the course o f the marriage. The
respondent disputed t h i s claim as having no legal basis and argued that the
 a p p e l l a n t had o n her o u n volition chosen to s t a y liomc as a f u l l - t i m e
h o u s e w i f e . In t h i s , the Board would h a v e to a g r e e with t h e r e s p o n d e n t . W e
a r e d o u b t f u l if t h e claim has a n y legal basis at all and o n this g r o u n d a l o n e
the c l a i m c a n b e d i s m i s s e d . Further, t h e appellant did not a l l e g e that s h e w a s
c o m p e l l e d to d o s o by the r e s p o n d e n t . T h i s s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t e d that t h e
a p p e l l a n t m u s t h a v e agreed to this c o u r s e o f action and w a s f u l l y a w a r e o f t h e
s a c r i f i c e that s h e had to rnalce in t e r m s of h e r c a r e e r . S h e m u s t h a v e agreed
to d o s o f o r t h e mutual benefit o f the respondent and the f u t u r e o f t h e i r
family. A s s u c h , it would b e w h o l l y i n e q u i t a b l e for t h e a p p e l l a n t to s e e k
colnpensation n o w .

50% share in the I~rdonesiarrproperty owned by tile respondent

L
23. T h e appellant sought rt s h a r e in t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r o p e r t y in I n d o n e s i a
which w a s valued at S$292,7551-. T h e respondent d i s p u t e d this claim s t a t i n g
that no s u c h property e x i s t a n d that t h e a m o u n t o f S$292.7551- w a s a c t u a l l y a
loan given t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t b y Md Abdat in relation to the R o x y B u i l d i n g
unit. O n the e v i d e n c e , w e f o u n d that the appellant had not proven on a
b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a property a n d that it falls w i t h i n t h e
d e f i n i t i o n o f m a t r i m o n i a l p r o p e r t y under s . 5 2 ( 1 4 ) A M L A . Therefore w e
d i s m i s s the a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m .

50% share in the respondent's C P F ni onies, insurunce policies, household

C items, rental fees.frorn the Roxy unit arzd shares

24. T h e appellant s o u g h t a 5 0 % s h a r e in the r e s p o n d e n t ' s C P F monies.

various i n s u r a n c e policies, the h o u s e h o l d i t e m s , rentals from t h e R o x y
B u i l d i n g unit atid v a r i o u s s h a r e s . With respect to the r e s p o n d e n t ' s C P F
m o n i e s , s h e s o u g h t an a l t e r n a t i v e o r d e r that s h e be given S$50,0001- in lieu
o f a 5 0 % s h a r e in the r e s p o n d e n t ' s C P F . T h e respondent s u b m i t t e d that h e
had o n l y S $ 1 2 . 7 8 in h i s C'PF o r d i n a r y a c c o u n t . And f u r t h e r , h e a r g u e d that
the appellant has no legal b a s i s f o r s e e k i n g c o m p e n s a t i o n in lieu o f a s h a r e in
the C P F m o n i e s . W e d o not tllink that the appellant would s e r i o u s l y p u r s u e
her claim f o r 5 0 % s h a r e in t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s C P F as t h e a m o u n t is m i n i s c u l e .
 That w a s why s h e sought in the a l t e r n a t i v e S 6 5 0 , 0 0 0 / - a s c o m p e n s a t i o n . And
again w e would a g r e e with the r e s p o n d e n t ' s sublnission t h a t s u c h a claim f o r
c o m p e n s a t i o n has no legal basis and w e d i s m i s s the c l a i m .

Household frrrniture aizd fittiizgs

25. Both parties mutually agreed that t h e s e items a r e to b e sold and the
proceeds t o b e divided eclually b e t w e e n the parties. As s u c h w e o r d e r e d that
the h o u s e h o l d f u r n i t u r e and fittings a r e to b e sold within 6 months from t h e
d a t e o f this o r d e r and t h e p r o c e e d s a r e to b e d i v i d e d e q u a l l y between t h e
a p p e l l a n t and respondent.

C
Respondent's nlonies i n vririous bank a c c o u n t s

26. T h e claim under this head i s in relation to two b a n k a c c o u n t s . T h e first

account ( O C B C a / c 6 1 5 - 7 3 3 3 5 9 - 0 0 1 ) w a s a joint account in the n a m e s o f t h e
respondent and Firdous, his partner i n Bella Interiors. T h e a c c o u n t had been
closed o n 13 J a n 0 6 . As for the s e c o i ~ daccount ( O C B C a / c 6 6 5 - 8 2 2 3 1 8 - 0 0 ] ) ,
t h e t h r e e d e p o s i t s m a d e into the a c c o u n t w e r e in c o n n e c t i o n to t h e p u r c h a s e
o f a Roxy Building unit by the r e s p o n d e n t ' s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w . T h e respondent
had been given a power o f a t t o r n e y in the p u r c h a s e o f the said unit. The
t h r e e fund transfers into t h e a c c o u n t had been effected b y t h e b r o t h e r - i n - l a w .
As such, we dismiss these claims.
C
Cycle a n d Carriage shures, Schqf' shures

27. T h e respondent explained that the C y c l e and C a r r i a g e s h a r e s w e r e

jointly purchased by Firdous and t h e respondent. T h e s e s h a r e s had been sold
o n 2 5 A p r 00 f o r S $ 4 0 2 , 9 0 8 . 8 2 . T h e e n t i r e p r o c e e d s o f s a l e had been used t o
r e d u c e their b u s i n e s s overdraft with Maybank. As for the Schof shares, the
respondent denied that he held s u c h shares. On t h e b a s i s o f the e v i d e n c e
a d d u c e d before us, w e are c o ~ n p s l l e dt o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m s .

Jelita I a n d Jelitu 11
 28. T h e appellant claimed a s h a r e in the b u s i n e s s c o n c e r n s s t y l e d Jelita I
and Jelita 11. H o w e v e r , the respondent d i s p u t e d her claim s t a t i n g t h a t he had
nothing to d o with Jelita I a n d Jelita I1 w a s incorporated s o m e t i m e in N o v 0 5 ,
which w a s after the talak had been p r o n o u n c e d . T h e B o a r d n o t e d t h a t other
than a b a r e a s s e r t i o n , the appellant h a d failed t o a d d u c e f u r t h e r details
concerning Jelita I . Under these c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we h a v e n o o p t i o n but to
dismiss h e r c l a i m . As for Jelita 11, a s it w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d a f t e r the
respondent had pronounced the talak, we find t h a t it f a l l s o u t s i d e the
definition o f matrimonial property and therefore it i s not s u b j e c t t o division.
Similarly w e d i s m i s s t h e claim for a s h a r e in Jelita 11.

C
Flat at B l k 263A Serangoorr Ave 2 #03-147

29. T h e a p p e l l a n t sought half share o f the sale p r o c e e d s f r o m the

Serangoon flat. T h e f l a t w a s sold for S $ 4 0 9 , 0 0 0 / - in 1996. T h e respondent
disputed the a p p e l l a n t ' s claim for the reason that the flat had b e e n s o l d long
ago and the p r o c e e d s o f s a l e had been depleted in 2 0 0 3 . H e had given a
detailed a c c o u n t o f h o w the sale p r o c e e d s were used. A c c o r d i n g t o the
respondent, a portion of the sale p r o c e e d s ( S $ 3 6 , 4 0 0 / - ) h a d b e e n u s e d to pay
towards the purchase o f the Bedok flat. S $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - had b e e n u s e d t o r e d u c e
the r e s p o n d e n t ' s m o r t g a g e f o r the Guthrie unit. S $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 / - h a d b e e n used in

b connection to the renovation of the B e d o k flat and to p u r c h a s e the furniture

and fittings while S $ 9 , 0 0 0 / - was used t o pay t h e h o u s i n g a g e n t ' s f e e s . A s the
property is no l o n g e r in existence, a n d the p r o c e e d s o f s a l e h a v e been
dissipated into a s s e t s that are now the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o f t h i s a p p e a l , we
would d i s m i s s the a p p e l l a n t ' s appeal under t h i s head.

Lzimp-sum payment o f S$500,000/-

30. In light o f t h e abovementioned p a r a g r a p h s , the a p p e l l a n t ' s alternative

submission for a l u m p - s u m payment of S $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - w o u l d n o w be untenable.
In the first p l a c e , the a n a l y s i s o f the v a r i o u s a s s e t s a b r ~ v ew o u l d s h o w that
the Senior P r e s i d e n t ' s approach o f a w a r d i n g a l u m p s u m p a y m e n t because of
 the difficulty in c o m p u t i n g a p r e c i s e value f o r the a s s e t s is f u n d a m e n t a l l y
flawed and the a w a r d is therefore arbitrary. T h i s is c o m p o u n d e d by the
findings that s o m e o f t h e s e a s s e t s are not m a t r i m o n i a l p r o p e r t i e s and
therefore n o t s u b j e c t t o division u p o n divorce. A s s u c h , w e d i s m i s s this part
of the a p p e l l a n t ' s appeal.

NOTICE O F MOTION

31. Before we c o n c l u d e , w e w o u l d like t o address a m o t i o n tabled by the

appellailt t o a d d u c e fresh e v i d e n c e d u r i n g the h e a r i n g o f the a p p e a l . The
fresh e v i d e n c e a r e -
Ic
1. M e m o r a n d u m from National Cancer C e n t r e .
..
11. Department of Surgery, SGH.
...
111. S G H Patient's Result.
iv. A p p l i c a t i o n t o rent a H D B flat.
v. S e a r c h result of 7 0 A L o r o n g Marican.
vi. S e a r c h result o f 150 C h a n g i Road #01-02 G u t h r i e B u i l d i n g .
vii. S e a r c h result o f 1 0 Jalan Yasin.
...
v i i ~ . A C R A s e a r c h record dated 15 A u g 07.
ix. A C R A detail o f business record dated 15 A u g 0 7 .
x. A C R A detail o f c o m p a n y .
xi. Photograph o f J e l i t a S p a .
xii. B e r i t a Harian report o n Jelita Spa dated 16 A p r 0 7 .

32. Essentially the fresh e v i d e n c e are meant to ( i ) s u p p o r t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

contention that he w a s a man o f substantial means and t h e r e f o r e he was not
telling the truth a b o u t h i s financial standing a n d ( i i ) to p r o v e that t h e
appellant had b e e n diagnosed with breast cancer. T h e r e s p o n d e n t o b j e c t e d t o
the Motion on t w o g r o u n d s . Firstly, the appellant had f a i l e d t o c o m p l y with
the procedures g o v e r n i n g t h e f i l i n g a n d service o f N o t i c e o f M o t i o n s (Rule
42(2) MMDR). R u l e 4 2 ( 2 ) requires the appellant to s e r v e the necessary
papers 011 the respondent s u c h that the respondent i s a b l e t o f i l e his affidavit
in reply within 21 d a y s o f b e i n g served with the a p p l i c a t i o n . I n this c a s e , the
 application and affidavit in support o f the application was served in the late
evening o f 17 Aug 07 lvith the application to b e heard oil 2 3 Aug 07. This
ineant that the respondent had less than 4 working days to file h i s reply
affidavit. On that basis, the respondent argued that the application should b e
dismissed outright. Secondly, the respondent argued that the admission o f
fresh evidence at this stage is at tlie discretion o f the Board. and on the
merits o f the case. t h e respondent argued that the application should be
dismissed.

33. Firstly, we are o f the opinion that the procedural irregularity in the
making o f this application i s not fatal. T h e respondent i f he so wished could
have been granted an adjournment t o prepare his affidavit in reply. Also, we
C are o f the opinion that the suddenness of the applicdtion did not necessarily
mean that there was a malicious intent to "ambush" the respondent. There
could have been other innocuous explanatioils for the abrupt nature of the
application. Further there is no evidence o f such a malice intended by the
appellant.

34. Secondly, we agree with the respondent that the admission o f fresh
evidence at this stage o f the proceedings is wholly at the Board's discretion.
The principles that the Board h a s to apply in allowing or disallowing the
admission o f fresh evidence is laid down in Sim C h e n g Soon v. BT
Engineering Pte Ltd & another [ 2 0 0 6 ] SGCA 2 1 , where the Court o f Appeal
C followed the principles established in Ladd v. Marshall [ I 9 5 6 1 1 W L R 1489.
Andrew Phang JA delivering the judgment o f the Court o f Appeal held that
no fresh evidence could be adduced except where the t h r e e conditions laid
down in Ladd v . Marshall had been satisfied. They were: ( a ) the evidence
sought to be adduced could not h a v e been obtained with reasonable diligence
for use in the trial; ( b ) the evidence had to be such that, if given, i t would
probably have an important influence on the result o f the case, although i t
need not be decisive; and ( c ) t h e evidence had to be apparently credible,
although i t did not have to b e incontrovertible. Andrew Phang JA also
clarified that the three conditions arc' c u ~ n u l a t i v eand in order to succeed, all
three must be satisf'ied.
35. P e r u s i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s that the a p p e l l a n t s o u g h t l e a v e t o a d d u c e , i t is
c l e a r that t h e a p p e l l a n t would h a v e failed t h e first c o n d i t i o n . It was quite
a p p a r e n t that t h e s e d o c u m e n t s had been in e x ~ s t e n c eat t h e t i m e o f t h e trial at
t h e S y a r i a h C o u r t and could h a v e b e e n niade a v a i l a b l e with r e a s o n a b l e
diligence. W e a r e a l s o o f t h e o p i n i o n that t h e a p p e l l a n t would fail in
s a t i s f y i n g the s e c o n d c o n d i t i o n . S o m e t h e d o c u m e n t s that the a p p e l l a n t
s o u g h t to a d m i t a r e in relation to e v e n t s that t o o k p l s c e a f t e r t h e d i v o r c e had
been u t t e r e d . T h e r e f o r e t h e y a r e not relevant to t h e p r o c e e d i n g s at h a n d a n d
b e i n g i r r e l e v a n t , they would not h a v e an i m p o r t a n t , i f a n y , o n the r e s u l t o f
the c a s e . A s s u c h w e d i s m i s s e d t h e m o t i o n .

CONCLUSION

36. In c o n c l u s i o n . o u r o r d e r s a r e a s f o l l o w s -

(i) T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l a n d r e s p o n d e n t ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l in relation

to t h e a w a r d o f ~ l u f k u h iddalt is d i s m i s s e d . The order of the
learned S e n i o r P r e s i d e n t a-warding n u f i a h iddalz t o the a p p e l l a n t
in t h e surn o f S $ 3 0 0 0 / - i s a f f i r m e d . T h e p a y m e n t shall b e m a d e
within o n e m o n t h f r o m t h e d a t e o f this O r d e r .

(ii) T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l o n rnt~taulz i s p a r t l y a l l o w e d and t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s c r o s s - a p p e a l o n t h e s a m e m a t t e r is d i s m i s s e d . T h e
r e s p o n d e n t shall p a y m u t a a h t o t h e a p p e l l a n t at t h e rate o f S $ 8 / -
per d a y f o r 21 y e a r s o f m a r r i a g e . T h e total a m o u n t o f nlutaah
p a y a b l e is S$6 1,3201-. T h e p a y m e n t shall b e niade in full w i t h i n
o n e rnonth from t h e d a t e o f this O r d e r .

(iii) The appellant's appeal and respondent's cross-appeal on the

d i v i s i o n o f the f a t at Blk 61 1 Bedok R e s e r v o i r Road #04-1 144
are d i s m i s s e d . 'The o r d e r o f t h e l e a r n e d S e n i o r President that t h e
net s a l e p r o c e e d s o f t h e f l a t - less all l i a b i l i t i e s and d e d u c t i o n
into the parties C P F a c c o u n t s shall be d i v i d e d 6 0 % to t h e
 appellant and 40?:, to the respondent is affirrncd. T h e tlat shall
b e sold in the open inarket within 6 inonths t'rom t h e tiate of this
Order.

(iv) T h e appellant's appeal lor a 5O0/o share in t h e other properties.

insurance policies. CPF monies arid bank accounts o r in the
alternative submission a I U I T I ~ sum payment o f S$500,000/- is
hereby dismissed. 'Thc l,espondent's appeal against t h e order o f
the learned Senior PI-esident awrarding t h e appellant a lump suni
payment of S$200,00O1- is allc~wedand the o r d e r is d u l y set aside
and the f o l l o w i ~ l gordcrs are licnczforth m a d e in lieu -

(a) T h e c o ~ n m e r c i a l unit at # @ I - 1 0 9 Roxy Building shall be

sold in the open market within 6 m o n t h s fro111 the date of
this order. T h e p r r ~ c e e d s of s a l e - less all liabilities
attached to the ; a i d unit and o t h e r e x p e n s e s incidental to
the sale - shall be divided 3 0 % to the appellant and 7 0 % to
the respondent.

(b) T h e household furniture and fittings in t h e tlat at Blk 61 1

Bedok Reservoir Road $04-1 144 shall b e sold in t h e open
market and the net proceeds divided equally between the
two parties.

(c) T h e appellant's claims for 50% o f t h e s a l e proceeds o f the

Indonesian property. 50% o f the respondent's C P F monies
or S$50,000/- as compensation thereof, S$126,0@0/- as
colnpensation tor not working d u r i n g the marriage, 50%
s h a r e in the resportdent's insurance polices, bank accounts
and shares, SO'% share in t h e Jelita I 1 business and rentals
i n the Roxy Building unit, and 5 0 % s h a r e in the sale
proceeds o f the f l a t a t Blk 2 3 6 A Serangoon Ave 3 #03-147,
a r e hereby dismissztl.
37. Finally. t h e p a y m e l i t s f o r i l ~ r / l o hid(loh ilnd n l , ~ l a c r hsiiall be made to the
a p p e l l a n t i n full w i t h i n o n e m o n t h from t h e d a t e or. t h i s O r d e r .

D a t e d t h i s 28"' d a y o f April 2005

Shaiffudin bin Saruwan

/
_---------_-_-____--------- --- -------

M o h d Kalnal b i n M o k h t a r