Important Note: This article is for general information and educational purposes only — not legal advice. It draws on the High Court’s grounds of judgment in Amira Umaira Teng binti Abdullah v Wee Ku Wing & Ors [2025] MLJU 4441 and the Court of Appeal’s decision as reported by Free Malaysia Today on 27 July 2026.
For illustration only
What an appellate court’s affirmation of a Muslim convert’s right to inherit from her non‑Muslim father means for families, estate administrators, and lawyers
When Amira Umaira Teng binti Abdullah converted to Islam in 2008, she took a new name and a new faith. She could not have foreseen that it would one day become the reason she would be excluded from her father’s inheritance. But when her father, Teng Guan Chai, died in 2020, her mother filed an application to distribute his estate and left Amira’s name out. What followed was a legal contest that has now been decided twice in Amira’s favour — first by the Kota Bharu High Court, and now by the Court of Appeal.
What happened
Teng Guan Chai, a non‑Muslim, died on 4 November 2020, leaving behind a wife, Wee Ku Wing, and seven children. The fourth of those children was Amira, formerly known as Teng Siaw Mei. She had converted to Islam on 17 October 2008 and married a Muslim man. The family knew of her conversion.
Because Teng Guan Chai died without a will, the distribution of his estate was governed by the Distribution Act 1958 (Act 300). His assets fell within the small‑estates threshold then applicable (RM2 million or less). The matter was therefore administered through the Land Office under the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 (Act 98) — the route that brings many non‑Muslim intestate estates into the statutory framework. (The threshold was later raised to RM5 million in July 2024.)
On 27 October 2022, Wee applied to the South Kelantan Estate Distribution Unit under the State Federal Department of Director General of Lands and Mines (JKPTG) Kelantan — under Act 98 — for the distribution of her late husband’s estate. In her application, she listed herself and six children as beneficiaries. Amira was left out.
The distribution hearing proceeded on 9 August 2023. The Land Administrator appointed Wee as administrator and ordered the deceased’s property — both movable and immovable — transferred to her. Amira only learned of the hearing through an email from the Estate Distribution Unit, JKPTG, on 22 November 2023. She filed an originating summons in the High Court the following month, seeking to set aside the Distribution Order and Letters of Administration and to have the matter reheard.
The High Court’s decision
On 20 December 2025, High Court Judge Hasbullah Adam ruled in Amira’s favour. The central question was whether a child who had converted to Islam was barred from inheriting from a non‑Muslim parent under the Distribution Act.
The court examined section 2 of the Act, which states that the Act shall not apply to “the estate of any person professing the Muslim religion.” The exclusion, the court held, turns on the religion of the deceased, not the religion of the beneficiary. The Act does not apply to the estate of a Muslim person. It says nothing about the religion of the heirs.
The definition of “child” in section 3 of the same Act was equally clear. It defines a child by legitimacy, not by faith. Religion is not listed as a qualifying or disqualifying condition for inheritance.
The court also found that Wee had admitted in her own affidavit that Amira was a biological child of the deceased. The omission of her name from the beneficiary list was therefore a legal error. Parliament, the court concluded, had never intended to bar a child from inheriting based on religious status.
The High Court set aside the Distribution Order and Letters of Administration, ordered that all land transferred to Wee be restored to the deceased’s name, and directed a fresh distribution hearing before the Land Administrator.
The Court of Appeal’s answer
Wee appealed. On 27 July 2026, a three‑member Court of Appeal panel led by Justice Supang Lian, with Justices Amarjeet Singh and Shahnaz Sulaiman, upheld the High Court’s ruling.
The appellate court affirmed that the Distribution Act and the Small Estates Act do not prohibit a Muslim child from inheriting from a non‑Muslim parent. The court ordered Wee to pay RM30,000 in costs.
The decision means the legal principle now carries appellate authority. A Muslim child is not disqualified by statute from inheriting from a non‑Muslim parent. The statutory framework draws no such distinction.
Practical Takeaways
- For estate administrators and family members, the case is a clear reminder that, when distributing a non‑Muslim’s intestate estate, all lawful beneficiaries must be listed regardless of their religion. Deliberately omitting a child because of a perceived religious bar is a legal error that can result in the entire order being set aside.
- For lawyers, the decision provides appellate‑level authority on the scope of section 2 of the Distribution Act. The exclusion applies to the estate of a Muslim deceased, not to the beneficiaries. The definition of “child” under section 3 does not import a religious test.
- For converts and their families, the judgment offers reassurance that conversion to Islam does not sever the legal right to inherit from non‑Muslim parents under civil law. The law looks at the deceased’s faith, not the child’s.
A Closing Thought
The answer the courts have now given at two levels is a statutory one: under the Distribution Act 1958, the right to receive a share of a non‑Muslim’s intestate estate is not lost by conversion to Islam. The Act’s exclusion applies only to the estate of a Muslim deceased, not to the religion of the heirs. Parliament drew that line. The courts have simply confirmed where it falls.