Jamiyat Tabligh-Ul-Islam & Ors v Greengate Jamia Mosque & Ors

Where land is acquired on trust and the beneficial ownership is said not to have changed, the nature of the trust is determined by construing the acquisition instruments. If their meaning is ambiguous when applied to the relevant facts, evidence of the surrounding circumstances may be used to resolve the ambiguity.

The identity of a body named in a trust instrument may be established from the instruments read together, the governing constitution, the purpose for which the property was acquired, and the source and intended use of donated funds. A shared religious name does not, without more, establish subordination to another organisation. The court may declare that property is held for the local charitable body whose objects conform to the original trust.

The claim began in the County Court at Manchester as a possession claim concerning mosque and school premises. It later became a claim and counterclaim for declarations concerning the legal and beneficial ownership of land forming the Oldham mosque and related buildings.

The claimants argued that the properties were held beneficially for the Bradford-based JTI organisation. The defendants argued that the Oldham mosque was an independent institution and that its properties were held for the local mosque community, represented by the first defendant charity.

The central issue was the meaning of “JTI” and “the Mosque” in the historical conveyances and the 1981 constitution, together with the relevance of the source and purpose of the donations used to acquire and develop the properties.

1. The claimants’ claim was dismissed. The defendants established that the Oldham mosque was independent of the Bradford JTI organisation, and the court declared that it was held on trust for the first defendant charity.
2. Where the parties agree that beneficial ownership has not changed, the nature of the trust is determined by construing the transfers by which the land was acquired. The court applied the objective and unitary approach to construction summarised in [2023] UKSC 2.
3. The references to “JTI” in the earlier transfers were latently ambiguous in their application to the Oldham properties. The ambiguity could therefore be resolved by considering the surrounding circumstances, including the later conveyances, the 1981 constitution, the location and purpose of the mosque, and the source of the donations.
4. The 1992 transfer referred to an unincorporated members’ organisation and held the land for the members of the Mosque. The 1996 transfer defined the Mosque as the “Independent Jamia Mosque Jamiyat Tabligh Ul Islam, Oldham”. Those provisions, read with the self-contained 1981 constitution, indicated a local, self-governing mosque and contained no evidence of subservience to the Bradford organisation.
5. The source of the donations supported the same conclusion. Funds were raised principally by or for the Oldham community, including donations expressly directed towards building a mosque in Oldham. The court also derived support from the approach in Mohammed v Daji [2023] EWHC 2761 (Ch).
6. The purported transfers of two parcels to the first claimant were invalid because the necessary authority of the surviving trustee had not been established. Registration did not cure that defect, although rectification of the register was not sought in these proceedings.
7. The first defendant’s charitable objects conformed to the trusts on which the mosque had always been held. Any question concerning later governance of that charity was for the Charity Commission or separate charity proceedings.

The claim originated in the County Court at Manchester as a possession claim. It was subsequently expanded and transferred to the Business List of the Business and Property Courts in Manchester as a claim and counterclaim concerning beneficial ownership and related relief. The present judgment was a first-instance determination in the High Court.