Prologue
He left his wife RM1.
Just one ringgit.
Not out of poverty. Not out of ignorance. But by a deliberate act of pen, signed in solemnity, on a quiet October day in 1995.
To some, it was a symbolic insult.
To others, it was a legal masterstroke.
And for the Court of Appeal of Malaysia in Tho Yow Pew & Anor v. Chua Kooi Hean [2002] 2 MLRA 213 — it was a legal minefield.
Chapter 1: A Will, a War, and the Widow
Dr Tho Yow Cheong was not a common man. He was a doctor. A man who fought pain with precision. But by 1984, he was locked in a private battle with nasopharyngeal carcinoma — nose cancer. His days were consumed by medication, and his nights haunted by pain.
Somewhere in the haze of hospital visits and mounting despair, his marriage began to fracture. Eventually, he left the matrimonial home. He filed for divorce. He moved in with his mother and brother.
And then, on 20 October 1995, he signed his last will and testament.
The contents were striking.
-
RM1 to his wife.
-
His share of the Damansara Heights home — 60% to his mother, 20% to his daughter, 20% to his son.
-
The residue of his estate to his sister.
-
Executors? His two brothers.
When he passed, those brothers sought probate.
But his widow had other plans.
She filed a caveat. And then, she counterclaimed.
She was not just questioning the will. She was questioning the mind that made it.
Chapter 2: The Battle of Capacity
In the High Court, the widow found sympathy. The judge dismissed the brothers’ case and accepted her counterclaim.
Why?
Because, in the judge’s eyes, there were “suspicious circumstances” relating to the testamentary capacity of the testator.
But here’s where the law gets subtle — and sharp.
Testamentary capacity isn’t about what seems suspicious. It’s about what is legally unsound.
As the Court of Appeal later reminded us: a will can only be invalidated for lack of capacity if there was an insane delusion at the time of making or giving instructions for the will.
Just being sick isn’t enough. Just being in pain isn’t enough.
Even estrangement from a spouse is not enough.
In short: eccentricity does not equal insanity.
Chapter 3: Suspicion Misplaced
The appellate judges — Justices Gopal Sri Ram, Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, and Alauddin Mohd Sheriff — took a scalpel to the High Court’s reasoning.
Yes, the term “suspicious circumstances” does appear in will cases.
But it has a specific, limited meaning.
“Suspicious circumstances,” they said, “relate to the making of the will — not to the testamentary capacity of the testator.”
— [para 14]
That’s not a small error. That’s a misdirection in law.
The trial judge had conflated two distinct legal standards:
-
One for capacity (Was the mind sound enough?);
-
One for suspicion (Was the process clean enough?).
Chapter 4: The Reversal and the Rebirth
And so, the Court of Appeal did something rare.
It allowed the appeal — but did not declare the will valid.
Instead, it sent the case back for a full retrial.
Why?
Because the original trial had been infected by a flawed legal framework. Because a fresh judge was needed. And because justice demanded that both the facts and the law be properly realigned.
Epilogue: A Ringgit Reconsidered
This case is not about whether RM1 is fair. Or whether estranged husbands should disinherit their wives.
It is about how the law views the mind, and how courts should assess the sanctity of a will.
And in that, the Court offered timeless guidance.
🧠 Takeaways & Timeless Principles
1. Testamentary Capacity Requires Only a Modest Threshold
Referencing Banks v. Goodfellow and Williams on Wills, the court reiterated that a testator must:
Understand the nature of the act,
Appreciate the extent of their property,
Know the natural objects of their bounty,
Be free from insane delusion.
A testator need not be mentally perfect — merely sufficiently sound.
2. “Suspicious Circumstances” Must Relate to the Process, Not the Person
As emphasized using Theobald on Wills and cases like Wintle v. Nye, suspicion must surround:
The making and execution of the will,
The conduct of beneficiaries in its preparation,
Not the subjective state of health or estrangement.
Misusing this doctrine is a legal error, as the Court of Appeal firmly held at [para 16].
3. Judicial Misapplication of Legal Tests May Justify a Retrial
Even if the facts seem plausible, if the legal lens is flawed, justice demands a do-over — as granted here.
📚 Authorities Considered
-
Banks v. Goodfellow (LR 5 QB 549): The leading test on testamentary capacity.
-
Judah v. Isolyne Bose [1945] AIR PC 174: Unwellness ≠ incapacity.
-
Williams on Wills (7th edn): Cited for criteria of sound mind, presumptions, and delusions.
-
Theobald on Wills (15th edn): Clarified meaning of suspicious circumstances.
-
Wintle v. Nye [1959] 1 All ER 552: Illustrates undue influence by will preparers.
-
Sarat Kumari Bibi v. Rai Sakhi Chand [1929] AIR PC 45: On active participation and benefit.
Final Word
The legacy of Tho Yow Pew & Anor v. Chua Kooi Hean lies not in the RM1 — but in the RMillions worth of legal clarity it offers.
As lawyers, we must tread carefully when dealing with wills. Behind every signature may lie grief, greed, estrangement, or love — but what matters to the court is whether the mind was sound, and the process was fair.
Everything else is suspicion. And suspicion, like grief, must be examined with care — and with law.
Disclaimer
This article was prepared to provide educational value to our website’s readers. Please do not consider it as a substitute for legal advice. Please consult with a lawyer before making any decision on this matter. Our office offers paid consultations in this matter.
Thank you for reading.