Friends of dead man lose lawsuit for share of $4.6m property

The High Court yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by two friends of businessman Spencer Tuppani, 38, who was fatally stabbed by his father-in-law in 2017, for a share of a $4.6 million Holland Village property.

Mr Jason Er Kok Yong, 42, and Mr Lawrence Lim Soon Hwa, 46, claimed they each own a one-third share of the property that was registered in Mr Tuppani's sole name.

They claimed the three of them agreed to each contribute $535,200 in cash towards the purchase of the Lorong Mambong property that was tenanted to well-known pub Wala Wala Cafe Bar.

The suit was filed against the administrators of Mr Tuppani's estate - his widow Shyller Tan Cheng Cheng, her sister Sherry Tan San San and Mr Tuppani's first wife Felicia Keh Lay Hong.

Justice Mavis Chionh found aspects of Mr Er and Mr Lim's evidence to be "full of gaps", "riddled with inconsistencies" and "highly suspicious".

Mr Er and Mr Lim had relied on a trust deed, prepared by Mr Tuppani's lawyer in May 2017, in which Mr Tuppani declared that he held a two-thirds share in the property on trust for the duo.

The deed was never signed by Mr Tuppani, who died on July 10, 2017.

Justice Chionh said the deed by itself was not credible evidence of a common intention for the three to jointly own the property and for Mr Tuppani to hold Mr Er and Mr Lim's shares on trust for them.

The judge agreed with the defendants that Mr Tuppani had asked his lawyer to draft the trust deed in the light of his impending divorce, and the anticipated fight over the division of assets.

It emerged from WhatsApp messages between Mr Tuppani and his lawyer that Mr Tuppani had wanted a trust deed prepared so he could "show Shyller" that the Lorong Mambong property was "theirs not mine", the judge said.

Mr Er and Mr Lim claimed the trio had discussed the purchase on WhatsApp, but could not produce the chats, which the judge said was highly suspicious. The pair claimed they deleted the chat group within weeks of Mr Tuppani's death because they felt "sad" seeing it.

"I found the plaintiffs' attempts to explain its unavailability to be shifty and wholly lacking in credibility," said Justice Chionh.

The judge also had grave doubts as to whether each man had in fact paid $535,200. "I found the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs of their alleged financial contributions to be riddled with inconsistencies and unexplained gaps and generally lacking in credibility."

Justice Chionh also dismissed a separate suit filed by Mr Er, claiming sole ownership of a $566,000 BMW M6 that was bought in Mr Tuppani's name. She found his case to be "incoherent, internally inconsistent and frankly unbelievable".

She dismissed a counterclaim brought by the defendants against Mr Er for $1.1 million that Mr Tuppani paid him from August 2014 to May 2017, saying the six-year limitation period has passed in respect of payments made in 2014.

As for the other payments, the defendants failed to produce evidence that Mr Er owed them a duty to account for the money.

Mr Tuppani's father-in-law, Tan Nam Seng, 74, is serving an 8½-year jail term for the killing.