Solad Sakander Mohammed & Ors v Sabir Ahmed Ebrahim Daji & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 1247
Solad Sakandar Mohammed & Ors v Sabir Ahmed Ebrahim Daji & Ors
3 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2761 (Ch)
High Court
A fight over who owns a mosque in London was settled. The court decided the people who raised the money to buy it own it, not a different group from another city. They also said it was okay to replace a trustee who wasn't doing their job.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over ownership of Abbey Mills Mosque site in London.
- •Registered proprietors are three individuals as trustees of Anjuman-e-Islahul Muslimeen of (London) U.K.
- •Land acquired in 1996 for £1.4m, funded by donations and loans from Tablighi Jamaat community.
- •Claimants argue ownership under 1996 Declaration of Trust.
- •Defendants counterclaim ownership under 1975 Declaration of Trust (Dewsbury Trust).
- •Claimants also seek declaration that a trustee was replaced and a cy-près scheme if the property claim fails.
- •Extensive evidence presented from numerous witnesses, including hearsay evidence.
Legal Principles
A donation to a charity is held for the purposes intended by the donor, ascertained objectively.
Tudor on Charities, 11th ed., 18-048ff; Lewin on Trusts, 20th ed., at 7-004 and 7-005; Charity Commission v. Framjee [2014] EWHC 2507 at para.28(d); Re Church Army (1906) 94 LT 559.
Trustees with implied authority may execute a more specific deed limiting the terms of a trust, provided it doesn't conflict with donors' intentions.
Tudor on Charities, 11th ed., 18-048; Khaira v Shergill [2014] UKSC 33; Attorney General v Mathieson [1907] 2 Ch 383.
In ascertaining donors' intentions, the court considers the factual matrix and principles of contract interpretation.
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; Wood v. Capita [2017] UKSC 24.
Oral evidence under cross-examination is the gold standard, but documentary evidence and probabilities are also important.
Kimathi v FCO [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) at para.96; Gestmin; Lachaux; Carmarthenshire County Council.
A trustee who refuses to act may be removed and replaced.
Clause 8(c) of the 1996 trust deed; s.36(1), Trustee Act 1925; s.280 Charities Act 2011; s.40 Trustee Act 1925.
Cy-près scheme can be applied if a charitable purpose becomes impossible.
s.62(1)(e)(iii) Charities Act 2011
Outcomes
Claimants succeed on the property claim.
The objective intention of donors and lenders was for the land to be held by the Claimants for the benefit of the London Tablighi Jamaat community. Evidence shows that funds were raised locally and primarily for the local community's use. Later attempts to transfer the land to the Dewsbury Trust were unsuccessful and do not alter the original intentions of the contributors.
Claimants succeed on the removal claim.
D14 was validly removed as trustee due to his refusal to act, in accordance with the 1996 Trust Deed and the Trustee Act 1925. The meetings to remove him and appoint a replacement were properly convened.
Cy-près claim does not need determination.
The property claim succeeded, rendering the cy-près claim moot.
Similar Cases
Enus Ali & Anor v Muhammad Modu Miah & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1818 (Ch)
Syed Aminul Haque (representative/member of Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan unincorporated association) v Altaf Hussain & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 806
Syed Aminul Haque v Altaf Hussain & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 502 (Ch)
Hidayat Ullah v Mohammed Anf Ullah & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3313 (KB)