Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Keyaumi v Keyaumi [2010] SBHC 58; HCSI-CC 201 of 2010 (20 September 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Chetwynd J)

Civil Claim No. 201 of 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL KEYAUMI DECEASED

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE WILLS PROBATE AND
ADMINISTRATION ACT [Cap 33]

BETWEEN

RUTH KEYAUMI
Applicant

And

PATRICK KEYAUMI
Objector

M Ipo for Applicant
D Tigulu for Objector

Date of Hearing: 20th September 2010
Date of Judgment: 20th September 2010

Written reasons

1. I announced in Court my decision to grant Letters of Administration solely to the widow of the late Paul Keyaumi, Ruth Keyaumi the person named as Applicant, and indicated I would give written reasons later. These are those reasons.

2. The law is quite clear. Section 29 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act [Cap 33] (the act) says that where the deceased died wholly intestate, and that is the case here, the persons having a beneficial interest in the estate shall be entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration in the order of priority that may be prescribed for the purpose by rules. The rules are the Grants of Probate and Administration (Order of Priority) Regulations. Rule 3.(1) puts the surviving spouse at the top of the list. Ruth Keyaumi is the surviving spouse. She is entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration in priority to everyone else. None of this is disputed.

3. What the Objector son says is the court should invoke the provisions of s. 29(2) of the act. There is no doubt the court can change the order of priority in accordance with that sub section. It can do so for special circumstances or by reason of current customary usage. The son relies upon special circumstances. He says, in effect, there is a potential dispute between him and his mother. He says, "she has been demonstrating attitudes which showed that she does not care about the deceased's wishes" [1].

4. I do not accept the reasons put forward by the son show that there are special circumstances. I do not believe this is a case where the court should interfere with the order of priority as set out in the rules. It seems to me a very good reason for not ordering a joint administration of the deceased estate is the possibility that mother and son may not be able to agree. It is important that those who are jointly administering a deceased's estate are at one. That is clearly not the case here.

5. The distribution of the estate of someone who died without leaving a will is clearly set out in the act. The personal representative is legally bound to follow the provisions of the act. It is not the fault of the deceased's widow that the act may not exactly mirror the deceased's "wishes". Those wishes do not constitute a valid testamentary disposition. If there has been a valid and effective inter vivos gift then the son can rely on the provisions of that gift. There is no conclusive evidence of an effective inter vivos gift in this case, indeed there was no argument that there had been such a gift.

6. In my view special circumstances more usually arise when the person named in the rules as having priority is incapable of adequately dealing with the duties of a personal representative. This may be by reason of incapacity, (mental or physical) or it may be for other reasons, for example they are serving a prison sentence. There is no evidence in this case the widow is incapable of adequately dealing with the estate. She consulted solicitors at the outset and so has had and will continue to have the benefit of professional advice. There is absolutely nothing which gives rise to any fear or misgiving that she will not be able to adequately and properly deal with the estate.

6. For these reasons I seen no justification for interfering with the order of priority as set out in the rules. As I reminded the parties whilst giving my ruling, this court maintains a role in the administration of the estate. The administration by the personal representative is carried out with the authority of this court and if any beneficiary is unhappy about the distribution of the deceased's estate they are entitled to come to this court to ensure the administration is being conducted in accordance with the law. The important element in that last sentence is, in accordance with the law.

Chetwynd J

^[1] See sworn statement of Patrick Keyaumi filed 11/8/2010