John Lindsay Perry v. Lawrence Gregory

• Jurisdiction: Fiji
• Judgment Date: 23 November 2021
• Date: 23 November 2021
• Docket Number: HBC No: 64 of 2003
• Counsel: Mr. Stanton SC & Mr. Prasad for the Plaintiffs,Ms. Devan & Ms. Chetty for the Defendants
• Court: High Court (Fiji)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT LAUTOKA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

HBC No: 64 of 2003

Between:

John Lindsay Perry also known as John Perry of Suva, Fiji, Pastor, Coralie Perry of Suva, Fiji, Domestic Duties, Osea Waqamate of Suva, Fiji Retired, Suliana Radinimabua of Suva, Fiji Domestic Duties and Luke Rokobuta also known as Luke Jack Rokobuta of Perth, Australia, Pastor, as Trustee of the Potter's House Pentecostal Church of Fiji a Religious Body duly registered under the provisions of the Religious Bodies Registration Act; Cap 68.

Plaintiffs

v.

Lawrence Gregory of 14 Potts Street, Kashmir, Lautoka, Fiji, Pastor, Ratu Anthony Dovi Tavutavuvanua of Malolo Street, Lautoka, Fiji, Social Worker, Jai Prakash (father's name Hari Prasad) of Navula, Vaivai, Lautoka, Fiji, Farmer and Rohit Kumar Sharma (father's name Brij Ram) of Marlow Street, Drasa/Vitogo, Lautoka, Fiji, Accounts Clerk.

Defendants

Trial Dates: 27/07/15, 28/07/15, 29/07/15 & 30 07 15

Date of Judgment: 23 November 2021

Counsel Appearing:

Mr. Stanton SC & Mr. Prasad for the Plaintiffs

Ms. Devan & Ms. Chetty for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is my final judgment following a trial de novo in 2015. The matter was first tried before Madam Justice Phillips on 22 October 2007.

2. The following witnesses gave evidence at trial. For the Plaintiffs:

PW1	John Lindsay Perry
PW2	Robert Neil McGuiness
PW3	Phoebe McGuiness
PW4	Ross Alexander Hounslow
PW5	Keith Adrian Nicely

3. For the Defendants:

DW1	Lawrence Gregory
DW2	Pastor Brown
DW3	Mrs. Sue Allen Brown

4. The dispute is about a certain “church property” (“property”) situated in Lautoka. This property is all comprised in State Lease No. 391971. Presently, it is registered in favour of the Potters House Pentecostal Church of Fiji which is based in Suva (“Suva Church”).

5. However, as I explain below, this registration in favour of the Suva Church is irregular.

6. The Suva Church is a religious body. It was registered under the Religious Bodies Registration Act (“RBR Act”) in 1991. Sections 5 and 7 provide that the trustees of any religious body registered under the Act should hold property on its behalf. These Trustees are formalized through the registration of a Memorial of Trustees which sets out their names and other details and which must be registered with the Registrar (section 3).

7. Section 5 provides:

5. All grants of land heretofore issued to any persons on behalf of any religious body shall be held by such persons in trust for the said religious body, and on the registration of trustees as provided in this Act, certificates of title may be issued to such trustees in lieu of any grant or certificate of title issued before the commencement of this Act, subject however to any existing leases or encumbrances affecting the land comprised in any such grant or certificate of title.

8. Section 7 provides:

7. The registered trustees of any religious body under this Act shall for all purposes of dealing with any land under the provisions of the Land Transfer Act be treated as the proprietors, lessors or otherwise according to their interest in the land intended to be dealt with:

Provided always that their interest in such land shall in no case devolve on their personal representatives.

9. Section 2 provides that any legal suit or proceeding instituted or brought by or against any religious body shall be instituted or brought by or against its registered trustees.

2. All suits and proceedings at law instituted or brought by or against any religious body shall be instituted or brought by or against the persons registered as hereinafter provided as trustees for the time being of such religious body and any such suit or proceeding shall be carried to its final termination notwithstanding any alteration in the registered trustees of such religious body while such suit or proceeding is pending.

10. It follows from these provisions that registration per se under the RBR Act does not confer a juridical personality on a religious body. As such, a religious body registered under the RBR Act must hold property through its trustees.

11. In this case, there are two boards of trustees embroiled in a dispute as to which of them should be registered on the property in question as the legal owner. The plaintiffs wish to be registered as owner because they are the trustees for the Suva Church. The defendants wish to be registered as proprietors because they constitute the Board of Trustees for the Lautoka Church. At the time the property was acquired, both churches were affiliated to a wider international network of churches called the Christian Fellowship Church Inc. (“CFCI”).

CFCI -FELLOWSHIP IN FIJI

12. The CFCI-fellowship is headquartered in Prescott Arizona in the United States of America. There are local congregational churches throughout the US and in other parts of the world which are affiliated to the CFCI-fellowship.

13. The churches which I refer to in this case (i.e. the Arizona Church, Suva Church, Lautoka Church, Perth, Melbourne and Guam) were all affiliated to the CFCI-fellowship at all material times. Except the Lautoka Church, all have maintained their affiliation to this day.

14. The CFCI fellowship was founded by a Pastor Wayman Mitchell. At the time material to this case, he was the President of the entire CFCI-fellowship.

15. The Arizona Church is governed in accordance with a set of By-Laws. These By-Laws (“Arizona By-Laws”) set out the purpose of the Arizona Church and its governing structure. All CFCI-affiliated pastors regard the Arizona By-Laws as the governing instrument of the wider CFCI-fellowship.

16. Article 2 of the By-Laws provides that the “planting” and establishing of member churches both in the US and abroad are part of the core functions of the Arizona Church as well as the CFCI This core function would be carried out by the CFCF's ordained Ministers.

17. CFCI-ordained Ministers have established many churches all over the world. Among these is a church in Melbourne and also one in Guam. The Melbourne church would go on to establish a church in Perth. In 1991, the Perth Church established the Suva Church in Fiji.

18. The Suva Church's first Memorial of Trustees was registered with the Registrar of Religious Bodies on 6 June, 1991. In 1994, Pastor Brown (DW2) became the Pastor of the Suva Church. On 24 September 2001, the Suva Church registered its second Memorial of Trustees. This notified the Registrar that the plaintiffs had been appointed Trustees. As I have said, this Suva Church is currently registered as the proprietor of the property in question.

19. CFCI's presence in Lautoka began in May 1996. That was the year when a missionary by the name of Pastor Lawrence Gregory (DW1) arrived here in Fiji. Gregory was in fact commissioned and launched by the Guam Church to plant a church in Lautoka. This, he did in 1906 shortly after he arrived here.

20. The church which Pastor Gregory set up was originally known as the Potters House Christian Church of Lautoka. Its name was subsequently changed to Victory Christian Centre. For convenience, I shall, henceforth, refer to this church as the “Lautoka Church”.

21. From 1996 to 2001, the Lautoka Church functioned as a local CFCI-affiliated congregational church.

22. At some point after he arrived in Fiji, the idea of acquiring a property was birthed in Pastor Gregory. That vision came into fruition in 1998 when the property in question was purchased. His vision was to purchase a property to be used by the Lautoka congregation as a place of worship. Ideally, the property would have enough extra space for Pastor Gregory to reside in.

23. As it turned out, a property was in fact purchased. It is not in dispute that Pastor Gregory and the rest of the defendants, as well as the congregants of the Lautoka Church, all made substantial financial and non-financial contributions to the acquisition of the property.

24. However, in 2001, the Lautoka Church disaffiliated itself from the CFCI fellowship. It was then that the dispute arose as to the beneficial entitlement to the property.

25. Notably, from the time the property was acquired in 1998 until today, the Lautoka Church has been in continuous uninterrupted occupation of it.

ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURE WITHIN CFCI - FELLOWSHIP – GOLD SHEETS

26. All witnesses acknowledge that the Arizona By-Laws bind all CFCI-affiliated churches all over the world. In her cross-examination of PW5, Ms. Devan asked whether that bond is a legal one. Ms. Devan suggested that the CFCI-fellowship is just “a loosely affiliated group of churches tied together by a common broad vision and relationship”?

27. The CFCI-By-Laws of Arizona sets out a system of upward accountability within its ranks. In this hierarchy, CFCI-Arizona is placed at the apex.

28. Every Pastor running and maintaining a church within the fellowship is required to keep account of all financial matters (rent, tithes, offerings and other income and expenses) as well as spiritual matters. At the end of every month, every Pastor must complete in triplicates and submit a report. PW5, DW2 and Pastor Gregory all referred to this Report in their evidence as the Gold Sheets.

29. The first copy of the Gold Sheet is retained by the local Pastor's church. The second copy is forwarded to its mother church, and the third copy is sent to CFCI-Arizona.

30. Pastor Gregory gave evidence that under the Gold Sheets system, he would retain the first copy of the Lautoka Church monthly report. He sent the second copy to Guam because Guam was the church which launched Pastor Gregory to establish the Lautoka Church. The third copy, he sent to CFCI-Arizona. A certain percentage of all monies (tithes and offerings etc.) collected in Lautoka is sent to Guam and also to CFCI-Arizona. Notably, Pastor Gregory was never accountable to Suva/PHPCF.

31. The Suva Church's line of accountability is firstly to its mother church in Perth, Australia and ultimately to...