Nazir & Ors v Haroon Rashid & Anor

A charitable trust established to promote Islam is not confined permanently to a particular Sufi or spiritual tradition merely because its founders practised that tradition. The trust’s objects must reflect the purposes for which the community’s contributions were raised. In settling a mosque’s governance scheme, the electorate should focus on people who are, or wish to become, members of the congregation. Financial contribution alone does not confer a right to control the charity. Former worshippers without a continuing connection should not be included solely because of their past membership. Trustees should be appointed and removed by the management committee rather than elected directly.

The dispute concerned the governance of an Islamic centre and mosque acquired and developed through public contributions from the Muslim community. Following earlier proceedings before Gibbs J, the parties accepted that the property was held on charitable trust and that a court-approved scheme was required. The principal issues were the proper formulation of the trust’s objects, the composition of the electorate for choosing a management committee, the arrangements for voter registration and scrutiny, and whether trustees should be elected.

1. The words limiting the centre’s objects to the Sufi tradition, including the Haroonian Sufi tradition, were excluded from the constitution. The funds had been raised from the Muslim community generally and were intended to benefit that community, although the mosque was operated as a Sufi place of worship. The trust’s objects were therefore broader than the particular method or tradition through which they had historically been pursued.

2. The electorate was to consist of members of the congregation who had been, or became, regular or occasional worshippers from 1 January 2005. The electorate was not confined to Haroonian Sufi Muslims. The relevant focus was present or prospective participation in the life of the mosque.

3. People who had ceased to worship at the mosque for a substantial period were not included merely because of their past connection. Nor did the provision of financial support alone give a person a right to vote. Donors could continue to support the charity without becoming entitled to control its affairs.

4. The proposed registration procedure required adaptation to the congregation’s circumstances, including illiteracy and limited English. The court preferred arrangements involving respected members of other mosques as scrutineers rather than the proposed external organisation’s procedure in its existing form.

5. Trustees were not to be elected. The management committee was to appoint and remove trustees and fill vacancies. The proceedings were stayed to allow the parties to settle the final scheme and submit an appropriate formal order.

Not stated in the judgment.