Spencer Tuppani (left) was stabbed by his father-in-law, Tan Nam Seng, on July 10, 2017. - SPENCER TUPPANI/FACEBOOK, ST FILE
SINGAPORE: The administrators of the estate of businessman Spencer Tuppani, who was fatally stabbed by his father-in-law in 2017, have lost a civil suit filed against his parents to recover a luxury watch he was wearing when he was killed.
The suit was brought by Tuppani’s wife Shyller Tan Cheng Cheng, her sister Sherry Tan San San and Tuppani’s first wife Felicia Keh Lay Hong.
The defendants were Shamlal Tuppani Bisaysar and his former wife, Tham Poh Kwai.
The administrators sought to get back the Richard Mille watch or, alternatively, a sum of S$389,205.13.
Shamlal Tuppani had handed the watch to his son’s long-time mistress Joan Yeo Gek Lin.
The administrators alleged that Yeo then handed the watch to Tham, who sold it. But the dead man’s mother denied having ever received the watch.
Despite the role she played in this narrative, Yeo, who had two children with Spencer Tuppani, was not sued by the estate administrators.
The businessman’s mistress, who was named as one of the witnesses for the dead man’s father, had sworn an affidavit stating that the watch was handed to Tham.
However, Yeo did not take the witness stand during the trial, even though Shamlal Tuppani issued a subpoena to summon her to court. No reason was given for her absence.
In a written judgment published on Dec 14, District Judge Jonathan Ng said Yeo’s absence was legally significant because it meant that her affidavit did not form part of the evidence before the court.
Thus, there was no credible evidence to rebut Tham’s testimony that the watch was never handed to her.
Yeo’s absence also led Judge Ng to infer that the version of events in her affidavit was untrue.
The judge said the adverse inference was warranted because the administrators had failed to call or subpoena Yeo as their witness, after it became clear that she would not be taking the stand for Shamlal Tuppani.
Spencer Tuppani was stabbed by his father-in-law, Tan Nam Seng, on July 10, 2017.
After the 38-year-old collapsed in Boon Tat Street, Tan told passers-by not to help his son-in-law. He then waited for the police to arrive.
Tan was upset with Tuppani for the way he treated Shyller Tan. He also believed his son-in-law had cheated him of his shipping business.
The 76-year-old was sentenced to 8½ years’ jail in September 2020, after he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of culpable homicide. The jail term was backdated to his date of arrest.
The Straits Times has learnt that Tan has been released from prison.
On July 11, 2017, a day after Spencer Tuppani died, his father collected his personal belongings from the police.
Shamlal Tuppani, who was represented by Joseph Ignatius, said he handed these items to Yeo on the same day because he was “very distraught” and “traumatised” by his son’s death.
He said Yeo subsequently told him that she had handed the watch to Tham.
Judge Ng concluded that at the point in time when Shamlal Tuppani handed the watch to Yeo, the man did not consider the question of who was entitled to the timepiece.
The judge said Shamlal Tuppani’s act of handing the watch to Yeo was “capable of innocent explanation”, noting that Yeo was in a long-term relationship with Spencer Tuppani and that she was seen as the “closest” to him at the time.
The administrators’ lawyer, Anna Oei, had put it to Shamlal Tuppani during the trial that he handed the watch to Yeo because he considered her to be his son’s wife.
Said Judge Ng: “The point I make here is that Joan was not a stranger to the deceased. In the transitory state of affairs back then, she was not someone who, to a lay person, was clearly not entitled to receive the watch.”
Tham, represented by David Nayar, denied ever having come into possession of the watch.
On the other hand, Shyller Tan testified about two phone calls where she heard Tham over speakerphone admitting to taking the watch and selling it to someone named “Tony”.
The two phone calls were said to have taken place in 2020, while Shyller Tan, Yeo and Keh were taking a break from a mediation session.
Judge Ng said this aspect of Shyller’s Tan evidence was not convincing, as she had raised it for the very first time only during the trial and had not mentioned it in her affidavit filed earlier to the court. - The Straits Times/ANN
