Key Facts
- •The World Federation of the Khoja Shia Ithna-Asheri Muslim Communities (the Charity) is a substantial international religious charity.
- •A dispute arose concerning the 2020 Presidential election won by Mr. Safder Jaffer and the handling of substantial donations from a single donor.
- •Dr. Mohamed Jaffer, a member of the Charity's Executive Council (ExCo), challenged the election's validity and the management of donations.
- •The main issues were Mr. Jaffer's eligibility to stand for election, irregularities in the election process, and the propriety of handling large donations.
- •The court considered the Charity's constitution, standard operating procedures, and the Charity Commission's guidance.
Legal Principles
The court has inherent supervisory jurisdiction over charities and can make orders in their best interests.
Mellor J in the present case
The appointment of a receiver is a draconian remedy only granted when necessary and no lesser remedy suffices to protect the charity's interests.
Defendants' submission, supported by Lewin on Trusts and Snell's Equity
Courts take a benevolent approach towards charity trustees, especially when dishonesty or wilful misconduct is not alleged.
Falk J in Re Keeping Kids Company [2021] EWHC (Ch) 387
The court should not substitute its judgment for that of fiduciaries unless they act improperly or unreasonably (non-intervention principle).
Children's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v Attorney General [2020] UKSC 33
In charity proceedings, the court's function is to act in the best interests of the charity.
Agreed by parties, supported by Construction Industry Training Board v Attorney General [1973] Ch 173
Outcomes
Mr. Safder Jaffer was deemed eligible to stand for the 2020 Presidential election.
The court interpreted 'registered member' as meaning accepted as a member by the local jamaat, not requiring inclusion on the voter list.
Allegations of election irregularities were largely dismissed as immaterial or within the Electoral Commission's discretion.
The Electoral Commission had discretion to adapt procedures for practical reasons, and any breaches did not materially affect the election's outcome.
The application to appoint a receiver to conduct the 2024 Presidential election was dismissed.
The court found no justification for believing the Charity's Electoral Commission would be unable to conduct a fair election; appointing a receiver would harm the Charity.
The application to appoint a receiver to investigate the financial affairs of the Charity was dismissed.
The MKS Report, while identifying some shortcomings, did not reveal serious wrongdoing; improvements had been implemented, and appointing a receiver would damage the Charity.