Solad Sakander Mohammed & Ors v Sabir Ahmed Ebrahim Daji & Ors

21 October 2024

[2024] EWCA Civ 1247

Court of Appeal

Two groups of Muslims argued over who owns a mosque building. A judge decided it belongs to a local group, not a national charity. The decision was based on evidence suggesting that the local group had clearly established a separate trust for the building, despite some misleading actions by some parties and use of pre-existing documents. The appeals court agreed with the judge, emphasizing the need to look at the overall situation and not just single pieces of evidence.

Key Facts

•Dispute over ownership of Abbey Mills site, purchased for a mosque and community center.
•Appellants (defendants below) claim ownership under the Dewsbury Trust (a registered charity).
•Respondents (claimants below) claim ownership under the London Trust (an unregistered trust).
•All parties are followers of Tablighi Jamaat.
•Abbey Mills was purchased using funds raised primarily from the London Tablighi Jamaat community.
•The London community had previously experienced issues with funds being diverted to the Dewsbury Trust.
•A November 1994 meeting is central to the dispute, where it was allegedly decided to establish a separate London trust.
•Receipts issued to lenders were headed with the Dewsbury Trust's name and details.
•A declaration of trust for the London Trust was created later, but its timing and validity are disputed.
•Subsequent actions and correspondence show conflicting claims and attempts to transfer ownership to the Dewsbury Trust.

Legal Principles

A donation to a charity will be held for the purposes intended by the donor, ascertained objectively.

Tudor on Charities, 11th ed., paragraph 18-049

Where money is given for indefinite charitable purposes, the individual or committee entrusted with it has implied authority to declare the trusts.

Attorney-General v Mathieson [1907] 2 Ch 383

In contract and trust cases, the objective meaning of the language used is key; subjective intentions are immaterial (unless terms are not in writing).

Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173; Lewin on Trusts, 20th ed., paragraph 7-004

In cases with oral exchanges and conduct, a party's understanding of what was agreed is evidence, but can be rejected if a misunderstanding is found.

Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042

Appellate courts interfere with findings of fact only in limited circumstances (e.g., material error of law, no basis in evidence, misunderstanding/failure to consider evidence).

Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The Judge's findings were adequately supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the November 1994 meeting and the context surrounding the receipts and 'holding out' actions. The Judge's conclusion that a separate London trust was intended was justified.

Similar Cases

Solad Sakandar Mohammed & Ors v Sabir Ahmed Ebrahim Daji & Ors

[2023] EWHC 2761 (Ch)

Syed Aminul Haque (representative/member of Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan unincorporated association) v Altaf Hussain & Ors

[2024] EWCA Civ 806