In one of Singapore’s more dramatic family property disputes, the High Court has dismissed a lawsuit by Ms Jenny Prawesti, 53, who sued her 78-year-old mother, Madam Sauw Tjiauw Koe, claiming entitlement to a 50 per cent share in 26 Singapore properties.
Ms Prawesti argued that after she and her mother jointly purchased a Centrepoint unit in 2002 for $380,000, her mother promised that future properties would be jointly owned on equal terms. Over the years, 25 additional properties were purchased — most registered 90 per cent under Madam Sauw’s name, 9 per cent under Ms Prawesti’s brother Ronny Prananto, and 1 per cent under Ms Prawesti’s.
Madam Sauw, however, denied making such a promise. She said her children merely lent their names for convenience and learning purposes, and that she was the true owner of all the properties, financed largely through funds provided by her husband, Mr Sugeng Prananto, a businessman in Indonesia who supported the family with allowances reportedly exceeding US$100,000 per month at times.
Court’s Findings
Justice Hri Kumar Nair ruled that there was no evidence of any agreement granting Ms Prawesti a half-share of the portfolio. He accepted that both women were joint owners of only the Centrepoint unit, but found Madam Sauw to be the beneficial owner of the remaining 25 properties.
The court noted that Ms Prawesti only raised the alleged promise more than a year after filing suit, weakening her credibility. She had also repeatedly sought financial help from her mother to pay credit card bills from 2018 to 2020, yet never once mentioned any right to rental or sale proceeds from the properties — a contradiction, said the judge, if she truly believed she owned half.
Justice Nair also highlighted that several properties had been sold in 2016 and 2017, and Ms Prawesti had made no claim then for her purported share. The judge therefore concluded that Madam Sauw bore full financial responsibility for all mortgages and acquisitions except for the Centrepoint unit, where contributions were roughly equal.
Financial Orders
Madam Sauw was ordered to repay about $26,000 to her daughter, representing Ms Prawesti’s partial contributions to two units — one at Golden Mile Complex and another at Hoa Nam Building. Conversely, Ms Prawesti must return net rental proceeds from a unit at Hawaii Tower, Meyer Road.
Family Wealth and Fallout
During trial, Ms Prawesti testified that the family possessed “vast assets,” including 50 other properties, an island, and large Indonesian estates. Madam Sauw moved to Singapore in 1986 with her three children, while her husband remained in Indonesia to manage the family business.
Relations reportedly soured in 2021 when Madam Sauw stopped covering Ms Prawesti’s credit card debts. Ms Prawesti alleged that her mother had secretly used a power of attorney to sign collective-sale documents on her behalf; Madam Sauw countered that the lawsuit was retaliatory.
Ultimately, the case offers a rare glimpse into the dynamics of wealth, trust, and inheritance within a family of significant means — and the courts’ firm insistence on documentary proof over familial expectation.
