Chief Imam Y.P.O. Shodeinde & Ors V. The Registered Trustees Of The Ahmadiyya (1983)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI, J.S.C.

Proceedings in this matter on appeal to this Court were commenced by a writ of summons filed in the High Court of Lagos State at Lagos on the 14th day of January, 1975. The claims endorsed on the amended writ of summons filed on the 8th day of December, 1976 read:

“1. A declaration that the resolution passed by the executive committee of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam on the 12th day of May, 1974 whereby it purported to change the name of the Movement to Anwar-ul-Islam Movement is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. A declaration that the plaintiffs and those who adhere to them alone fully represent the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam Nigeria and are entitled to the whole lands and property belonging to the said Movement within Lagos State as at the 11th day of May, 1974 which were held by and vested in the 1st defendants as registered trustees on behalf of the plaintiffs and those adhering to them as constituting the true and lawful Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam and that the defendants are bound to hold and apply the same on behalf of the plaintiffs.
3. A declaration that the plaintiffs and those adhering to them lawfully represent the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam Nigeria and are entitled to all the funds and all the moveable property of the said Movement as at the 11th of May, 1974 and to have the same applied for and on behalf of those adhering to them and that by adhering to a body known as Anwar-ul-Islam the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants and those adhering to them had become seceders from the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam and had automatically ceased to be members of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam.
4. A declaration that all property vested as at 11th day of May, 1974 in the registered Trustees of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam appointed in 1974 were vested and held by them for and on behalf of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam and that no part thereof can be lawfully diverted to the use of any other association not maintaining and adhering to the whole of the fundamental principles and tenets contained in the constitution (including the conditions of the Bai’at and the Articles of faith) of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam.
5. A declaration that the former members of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam who had adhered to a body known as the Anwar-ul-Islam or who now so describe themselves have thereby lost all beneficial rights to such property of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in- Islam whether real or personal and that the 1st defendant cannot lawfully apply the same for the benefit of such members or of the Anwar-ul-Islam for its members.
6. A declaration that the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants had before or on the 12th of May, 1974 become Apostates and thereby automatically ceased to be members and officers of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam Nigeria and that all acts performed as such thereafter are null and void and of no effect.
7. An order for the return of all moveable property documents (whether of title or not) records, Account books and papers belonging to the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam which are or have been in the possession of the defendants.
8. An order for the payment to the plaintiffs of all sums of money belonging to the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam as at the 12th day of May, 1974 which the defendants have spent or utilised whether from its bank accounts or otherwise.
9. An account of all rents, royalties or other sums of moneys received by the defendants in respect or on account of the properties, moveable or immoveable of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in- Islam including sums received on account of the operation of the printing press of the movement.
10. Payment over to the plaintiffs of all sums funds (found) due.
11. An injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from entering or leading prayers in any of the Mosques belonging to the plaintiffs.
12. An injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from continuing to occupy and use all the properties real and personal, of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam.

13.An injunction restraining the 1st defendants and the 2nd to 7th defendants from applying the property of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam for the benefit of Anwar-ul-Islam and from performing their duties as such otherwise than in accordance with directives of the plaintiffs or any executive committee appointed by it.

14.An injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps to divest the plaintiffs of their properties or from taking any steps to effect the change in the name of the plaintiffs in respect or in relation to the plaintiffs’ properties”

These proceedings were provoked by the split in the ranks of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam following the change of name from Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam to Anwar-ul-Islam. Because of the prominent role played by the 2nd to the 7th defendants, the plaintiffs who strenuously opposed the move for the change of name regarded the 2nd to the 7th defendants as apostates to their faith and decided to recover all the properties of the Ahmadiyya Movement-in-Islam from their possession and control.

On completion of pleadings by the parties the matter came up for hearing before Ademola Johnson, J. At the conclusion of the hearing he delivered a considered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. The learned trial Judge in parts of his judgment observed inter alia:

”There is no evidence before the Court that, besides expressing a disbelief in the prophet hood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad because of their conviction that he had become a discredited leader, and others contrary to the teaching of Islam accepted him as such, there has been any departure from the fundamental aims and objects of the Movement. In fact they would appear to have held firmly to the ideas and fundamental principles and faith of Islam as exemplified by their writings and utterances as contained in the evidence and documents tendered by the plaintiffs as earlier mentioned…………………………………”

Although counsel for all the parties cited The Free Church of Scotland v. Over-toun {1904} AC 515 at page 516 et esq with Messrs Ajayi and Shomade relying substantially on its decisions as akin to the present case, Chief Williams drew a distinction with which I agree, and which in any view weakened the support which the case could give to the plaintiffs’ case. That distinction is that whilst in the constitution of the former Ahmadiyya Movement -in-Islam now Anwar-ul-Islam of Nigeria, there is express provision conferring power of amendment on the executive committee no such power was contained in the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland and the respondent in that case merely claimed to have full power to change the doctrine of the Church so long as its identity was preserved. The court ruled that the existence of such power must be proved.

In this case not only was it shown that the proof exists {exhibit 1 clause 88 refers}, it cannot, in my considered view, be said that besides the change in name, any change in the doctrine, creed, confessions, formalities and tests of the Islamic religion was made. Taking the evidence of the plaintiffs it cannot be honestly said that they also believe in or accept the prophethood of Ghulam Ahmad ………………….No court ever makes a contract for any party or group once the plaintiffs and their followers have agreed to be bound by the constitution of the Movement exhibit 1, they must be prepared to act within its provisions and cannot expect any help from the court to act ultra vires the provisions of what they have agreed to be bound sic. This is precisely the position of the court in this case. The plaintiffs and their followers agreed to give overall control to the executive committee as the government of the Movement as well as power to amend the said constitution………………..

Whilst the court concedes to any body or group be it domestic or otherwise the right to have access to the court for the redress of any wrong no remedy will be available to an applicant where the act complained of is in accordance with the agreement between the body or group. This view is supported by the judgment of Denning, L.J. (as he then was) in Lees v. The Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain (1952) 2 Q B 329 at 341 cited by Chief F.R.A Williams. The learned Lord Justice said and I quote:-

“The jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal such as the Committee of the Showmen’s Guild must be founded on a contract express or implied. Outside the regular courts of the County, no set of men can sit in judgment over their fellows except so far as Parliament authorises it or the parties agree to it.

The jurisdiction of the Committee of the Showmen’s Guild as contained in a written set of rules contains a contract between the members and is just as much subject to the jurisdiction of these courts as any other contract.”

The above is precisely what this court has endeavoured to do in this case to accept exhibit 1 as the contract between the members of the Movement and then interprete and construe it in accordance with its terms discountenancing any attempts to interprete it for the court by outside evidence……………………………