Arif Rahim Valibhoy v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura: Judicial Review of Trustee Removal
Mr. Arif Rahim Valibhoy applied for judicial review against Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura's (MUIS) decision to remove him and three other trustees (Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy, Imran Amin Valibhoy, and Vali Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy) from the Valibhoy Charitable Trust. The other three ex-trustees (OETs) sought to be joined as parties. The High Court of Singapore granted the joinder, ordering the OETs to file a summons and affidavit to clarify their position on whether the removal decision was severable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The OETs were joined as respondents. The court directed them to file a summons and affidavit to articulate their position.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review sought against MUIS's decision to remove a trustee. The court considered whether other removed trustees should be joined as parties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arif Rahim Valibhoy | Applicant | Individual | Leave granted for judicial review | Partial | Anil Narain Balchandani |
| Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura | Respondent | Statutory Board | Order to allow OETs to give evidence and make submissions on the severability of the Removal Decision as well as the Costs Decision | Neutral | Kam Su Cheun Aurill, Poon Guokun Nicholas, Chan Xiaohui Darius, Benjamin Tan Zhi Xiong |
| Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy | Respondent | Individual | Joined as Respondent | Neutral | Vikram Nair, Foo Xian Fong, Liew Min Yi Glenna |
| Imran Amin Valibhoy | Respondent | Individual | Joined as Respondent | Neutral | Vikram Nair, Foo Xian Fong, Liew Min Yi Glenna |
| Vali Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy | Respondent | Individual | Joined as Respondent | Neutral | Vikram Nair, Foo Xian Fong, Liew Min Yi Glenna |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anil Narain Balchandani | Red Lion Circle |
| Kam Su Cheun Aurill | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Poon Guokun Nicholas | Chen Xiaohui |
| Chan Xiaohui Darius | Chen Xiaohui |
| Benjamin Tan Zhi Xiong | Breakpoint LLC |
| Vikram Nair | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Foo Xian Fong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Liew Min Yi Glenna | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The four trustees of the Valibhoy Charitable Trust were unable to work together.
- MUIS made orders to remove all four trustees.
- One of the former trustees, Mr. Arif Rahim Valibhoy, sought leave for judicial review.
- The other three ex-trustees (OETs) sought to be joined as parties.
- The OETs removal stemmed from a complaint lodged by the OETs against him.
- The Applicant and the OETs were equally bound by the Removal and Costs Decisions.
5. Formal Citations
- Arif Rahim Valibhoy v Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, Originating Summons No 1168 of 2021(Summons No 1671 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 341
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Valibhoy Charitable Trust set up by will. | |
| Trustees unable to cooperate. | |
| OETs invited Applicant to retire. | |
| OS 355 filed seeking removal of Applicant as trustee. | |
| OETs filed a complaint to MUIS to seek the Applicant’s removal as a trustee. | |
| Applicant filed a cross-complaint against the OETs seeking their removal as trustees. | |
| Mediation between Applicant and OETs. | |
| Inquiry Committee hearing. | |
| MUIS directed parties to submit an Agreed Operating Protocol and made the Costs Decision. | |
| MUIS directed the removal of the Applicant and the OETs as trustees. | |
| Removal of trustees effective. | |
| HC/OS 1168/2021 filed by Applicant for leave to commence judicial review. | |
| Hearing for leave for judicial review. | |
| SUM 1155 filed by Applicant. | |
| SUM 1671 filed by OETs. | |
| Hearing for SUM 1671. | |
| Court joined the OETs as respondents. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Joinder of Parties
- Outcome: The court held that O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the ROC is applicable for a party seeking to be joined in a judicial review proceeding and that it was just and convenient to join the OETs as respondents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of Order 15 to Order 53 proceedings
- Requirements of Order 15
- Capacity in which parties should be joined
- Service of Papers
- Outcome: The court held that the OETs were entitled to service of the papers of OS 1168 under O 53 r 2(3) of the ROC as parties 'directly affected'.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'directly affected' under O 53 r 2(3) of the ROC
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order against MUIS’ decision to remove the Applicant as a trustee
- Quashing order against MUIS’ decision not to allow the Applicant to claim legal or other costs
- Declaration that the Applicant’s legal costs and disbursements be reimbursed from the VCT
- Order for the papers to be served on the OETs
- Order that the OETs were to be made parties to the proceedings or were alternatively allowed to participate as non-parties
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Administrative Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Shariff Valibhoy and others v Arif Valibhoy | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 301 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear OS 355 because the administration of wakafs fell within the exclusive domain of MUIS. |
| Ottavio Quattrocchi v Menteri Dalam Megeri, Malaysia & Ors | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [2001] 6 MLJ 561 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of 'directly affected' in the context of service of papers in judicial review proceedings. |
| Tomlin v Preliminary Investigation Committee of the Dental Council of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | Yes | [1995] 1 HKC 533 | Hong Kong | Referred to in Ottavio Quattrocchi v Menteri Dalam Megeri, Malaysia & Ors regarding the interpretation of 'directly affected'. |
| Regina v Rent Officer Service and another, ex parte Muldoon | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 1103 | England and Wales | Cited for the explanation of the phrase 'directly affected' as being affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. |
| Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd and others v Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1113 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'directly affected' as entailing some kind of impact on the status and legal rights of the party in question. |
| Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors | Federal Court | Yes | [2009] 6 MLJ 307 | Malaysia | Cited for the argument that O 15 is not applicable to judicial review proceedings because there is a specific provision in O 53 for parties to seek entry into these proceedings. |
| Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 6 MLJ 488 | Malaysia | Discussed in relation to the Federal Court decision of Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 307. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of O 53 r 4 as allowing a person who has not been served papers a right to be heard in opposition if he is a proper party to be heard, and not taking away rights from parties who have been served papers. |
| Malayan Association of Private Colleges and Universities & Ors v Registrar General of Private Education Institutions & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2017] 8 MLJ 813 | Malaysia | Discussed in relation to the Federal Court decision of Majlis Agama Islam Selangor v Bong Boon Chuen & Ors [2009] 6 MLJ 307. |
| Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 841 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that O 15 r 6 of the ROC could not be used to bypass the requirement for leave under O 53 r 1(1)(b). |
| Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and others | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of O 15 r 6, which is to ensure that the right parties are before the court so as to minimise the delay, inconvenience and expense of multiple actions. |
| Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 280 | Singapore | Cited for the principles pertaining to a joinder under O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the ROC. |
| ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principles pertaining to a joinder under O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the ROC. |
| Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appeals | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 894 | Singapore | Cited for the principles pertaining to a joinder under O 15 r 6(2)(b) of the ROC. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the leave threshold is very low. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney General and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all that was required was a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies sought. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the views on whether allowing the declaration to be sought in addition to the quashing orders sought by the Applicant would still circumvent the leave requirement of O 53. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a declaration is a discretionary remedy and must be justified by the circumstances of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 Rule 2(3) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 53 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 15 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 32 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 32 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Valibhoy Charitable Trust
- MUIS
- Judicial Review
- Trustees
- Removal Decision
- Costs Decision
- Agreed Operating Protocol
- Joinder
- Severability
- Directly affected
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Trust
- Trustee
- MUIS
- Joinder
- Singapore
- Administrative Law
16. Subjects
- Trust Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review
- Civil Procedure
- Parties
- Joinder