clr/1980/1980_1_225.pdf

(1980)which, on December 31, 1978, amounted to C£l5,734. Hence this application for an order of the Court sanctioning the above disposition of property. Counsel for theAttorney-General hasnot opposedthepresent application but he submitted that the agreement to be entered into between the plaintiffs and theLimassol Municipality should cast an obligation on the said Municipality "to admit, keep and maintain the old and incapacitated persons who are unable to work". 5 Held, thatthough thisCourthaspowertosanctionthedisposi- 10 tion ofthe property concerned oftheCharity,ifit issatisfied that such disposition is for the benefit and advantage of theCharity (see section 13(

1. c)of the Charities Law, Cap. 41), such a power has to beexercised cautiously and sparingly; that the disposition of property of the Charity,in relation to which the sanction of 15 this Court is being sought, is for the benefit and advantage of the Charity, in the sense that, through such disposition object (
2. b)of the Charity will continue to be fulfilled by the Limassol Municipality which is one of the co-founders of the Charity, and, at the same time,theCharity will be relieved of the burden 20 of its obligation to the Bank of Cyprus Limited and it will,thus, be enabled to pursue more effectively its object (a); that, therefore, the applied for order will be made subject to the term that the agreement to be entered into, in this connection, by the plaintiffs and the Limassol Municipality will make clear and 25 unambiguous provision, as suggested by the Attorney-General of the Republic, and, also,that it will be, asenvisaged bymeans of clause 5 of such agreement, approved by the Council of Ministers. Orderaccordingly. 30 Cases referred to: Mitsis Lemythou CommercialSchool v. Attorney-General of theRepublic,1964C.L.R. 1; The Bishop of Kitium and Othersas Trusteesof the Dianellos Charity (No. 1) v. The Attorney-Generalof the Republic 35

(1971)1 CL.R. 92 at p. 105; "The Orphanage and Training School,Demetrakis G. Dianellos ofLarnaca" v. TheAttorney-General of theRepublic

(1977)1 C.L.R. 302 at p. 310; 226 1 C.L.R. 5 L'ssol Poor Relief C/tteev. Attorney-General 77ie Trustees, of the "Mitsis Lemythou Commercial School" v. TheAttorney-General oftheRepublic

(1972)1C.L.R. 49; Attorney-General v. TheArchbishop of York, 51 E.R. 1126; Re AshtonCharity, 52E.R. 1119; Re Colston's Hospital, 54 E.R. 6; St. Mary MagdalenCollege, Oxford v. The Attorney-General. 10 E.R. 1267 at p. 1273. Charity Application. Application by the Trustees of the Charity known as the 10 "Limassol Poor Relief Committee" under section 13(c) of the Charities Law, Cap.41, for an order sanctioning "the disposition by way of gift on behalf of the Limassol Poor Relief Committee to the Municipality of Limassol and the registration in the Land Registration Office in the name of-the said Municipality of the 15 immovable property owned by the said Limassol Poor Relief Committee and registered in its name by Registration No. 22597 dated 12th February, 1968, in Ayia Phylaxis at locality 'Angathia' opposite Tsirion Stadium together with all buildings erected thereon including a small church known as 'Ayios 20 Panteleimon' and with all trees growing thereon." /. Potamitis, for the plaintiffs. Gl. HadjiPetrou, for the defendant. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means 25 of the present application the plaintiffs seek from this Court an order sanctioning "the disposition by way of gift on behalf of the Limassol Poor Relief Committee to the Municipality of Limassol and the registration in the Land Registration Office in the name of the said Municipality of the immovable property 30 owned by the said Limassol Poor Relief Committee and registered in its name by Registration No. 22597 dated 12 February, 1968 in Ayia Phylaxis at locality 'Angathia' opposite Tsirion Stadium together with all buildings erected thereon including a small church known as 'Ayios Panteleimon*and with 35 all trees growing thereon." As it appears from the material before me the "Limassol Poor Relief Committee"—the trustees of which are the plaintiffs in these proceedings—is a charitable trust created by a trust 227 TriantafyUldes P. L'ssol PoorRelief C/tteeτ. Attorney-General

(1980)deed dated May 20, 1953; it has been registered under section 2 of the Charities Law, Cap. 41, as a corporate body (and it will be referred to hereinafter as the "Charity"). The said Charity has, as it appears from the aforementioned deed, two main charitable objects, which are:- 5 "(

1. a)to distribute to the poor of Limassol after registering same and to old disabled persons regular financial assistance or any other kind of rehabilitation; (
2. b)to lease or erect and to maintain a Hostel or Hostels in Limassol for the housing therein of old persons incapable of work and of supporting themselves". It is to be noted that the said objects have all along been pursued in cooperation with, and with the financial and other assistance of,the Limassol Municipality which appoints two out of the eight trustees of the Charily. 10 15 At a meeting on March 9, 1979—the minutes of which are, apparently through an oversight, dated erroneously "21st February, 1978"—the plaintiffs decided to transfer to the Limassol Municipality the immovable property, in respect of which the sanction of this Court is being sought, on certain 20 terms which are set out in the minutes of the said meeting and which need not be reproduced in full in this judgment; it is sufficient to state that by virtue of such terms the Limassol Municipality will undertake to use the property in question in furtherance of object (b), above, of the Charity and that the 25 Limassol Municipality will pay off the debt of the Charity to the Bank of Cyprus Limited which, on December 31, 1978 amounted to C£15,734. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the plaintiffs, and for the purposes of its implementation, there was prepared a 30 draft agreement between the Charity and the Limassol Munici­ pality, a copy of which has been filed by counsel for the plaintiffs and was, also, made available to counsel for the defendant. It is well settled that this Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the present application of the plaintiffs 35 (see, inter alia,Mitsis Lemythou CommercialSchool v. AttorneyGeneral of the Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 1) and that the law 228 1 C.L.R. L'ssolPoorReliefC/ttee v. Attorney-General Triantafyllides P. applicable is Cap. 41 and the law relating to charitable trusts for the time being in force in England (see section 15 of Cap. 41, as well as The Bishop of Kitium and Others as Trustees of the Dianellos Charity (No. 1) v. The Attorney-General of the 5 Republic,

(1971)1 C.L.R. 92, 105, and "The Orphanage and Training School, Demetrakis G. Dianellos of Larnaca" v. The Attorney-General of the Republic,

(1977)1C.L.R. 302, 310). Section 13(

1. c)of Cap. 41 reads as follows:"13. The Supreme Court shall have power and jurisdiction10 (a)0>) _ 15 __ • (
2. c)to sanction the saleor other disposition of any property subject to_a chantaWe_trust on being satisfied that such saleor disposition isfor the benefit and advantage of the charity." As it is expressly stated in section 13(c), above, this Court can sanction thedisposition ofthepropertyconcerned ofthe Charity, as applied for by the plaintiffs, if it is satisfied that such disposition isfor the benefit and advantage of the Charity (and see, in 20 this respect, also, the case of the Mitsis Lemythou Commercial School,supra, the case of The Trustees of the "Mitsis Lemythou Commercial School" v. The Attorney-General of the Republic,

(1972)1 C.L.R. 49, the English cases of Attorney-General v.~ The Archbishop of York, 51 E.R. 1126, Re Ashton Charity, 52 25 E.R. 1119, Re Colston's Hospital, 54 E.R. 6, and Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 4, p. 339, para. 696). It has been stressed that a power such as that conferred by means of section 13(c) of Cap. 41 has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly (see, inter alia, Halsbury's, supra, p. 339, para. 30 696, and the case of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford v. The Attorney-General, 10 E.R. 1267, 1273). Counsel for the Attorney-General has not opposed the present application; he has, however, submitted that the agreement to be entered into between the plaintiffs and the Limassol 35 Municipality should cast an obligation on the said Municipality "to admit, keep and maintain the old and incapacitated persons who are unable to work". 229 TriantafylHdes P. L'ssol Poor Relief C/ttee i. Attorney-General

(1980)After perusing all the material before me, in the light of the relevant provisionsand principlesoflaw,1findthat Ihavebeen satisfied that the disposition ofproperty of the Charity, in relation to which the sanction of this Court is being sought, is for the benefit and advantage of the Charity, in the sense that, 5 through such disposition, object (b), above,of theCharity will continue to be fulfilled by the Limassol Municipality which is is one of theco-founders of the Charity and, at the sametime, the Charitywill be relieved oftheburden ofits aforementioned obligation to the Bank of Cyprus Limited and it will, thus, be 10 enabled topursuemoreeffectively itsobject (a),above. Ihave, therefore, decided to make the applied for order subject to the term that theagreement to beentered into, in this connection, by the plaintiffs and the Limassol Municipality will make clear and unambiguous provision, as suggested by the Attorney- 15 General of the Republic, and, also, that it will be, asenvisaged bymeansofclause5 ofsuchagreement,approvedbytheCouncil of Ministers. There is, therefore, hereby made an order accordingly. As regardscostsIhavedecidedtomakenoorderinrelation thereto, 20 but Iconsider fit to express the view that the Limassol Municipality should indemnify the plaintiffs in respect of the costs of the present proceedings. Order accordingly. 230