A Kanesananthan v Singapore Ceylon Tamils' Association

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 15 April 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 93
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 93
• Date: 15 April 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Liew Teck Huat (Niru & Co)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 19 of 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Vivien Teng (Rajah & Tann),R Chandra Mohan (Rajah & Tann)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 07 October 2003

1 The plaintiff, a retired air-force captain, has been a member of the defendant association for over 30 years. The defendant is a community association for Sri Lankan Tamils in Singapore and manages a temple at Ceylon Road. On 5 July 2002 the plaintiff was involved in an altercation with the chairman of the temple trust in the presence of several members of the management committee of the defendant association. The cause of the incident as described by counsel for both sides does not appear to me to be very serious, nor, for that matter, the incident itself. Mr Liew, who appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Chandra Mohan, who appeared for the defendant, seem to agree that the incident concerned the refusal of the chief priest of the temple to perform some rites for the plaintiff. The defendant, however, alleged that the plaintiff literally threw a book at the chairman but this was denied by the plaintiff. His version was that he had merely placed the book before the chairman.

2 The defendant convened a disciplinary committee to inquire into the conduct of the plaintiff over the abovesaid incident. Shortly before the hearing date, the plaintiff applied by originating summons to nullify the Constitution and Rules of the defendant association, and also to annul the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

3 At the same time, an ex parte injunction was sought to restrain the disciplinary committee from hearing the matter. An interim injunction was granted on 6 January 2003. The defendant applied to discharge the injunction and the plaintiff applied to have the originating summons heard. Both applications came before me on 10 April 2003. I stood down the application to discharge the injunction and proceeded to hear the originating summons.

4 The thrust of the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant had no authority under the Constitution of the association to convene a disciplinary hearing because relevant provision that is cl 11(b) in the Constitution before its amendment provides the only way a member may be disciplined and that provision reads as follows:

‘11(b) Any member acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Association and/or in contravention of any of these Rules may be expelled from the Association by the members at a General Meeting.’

The plaintiff accepts that as of 21 January 2002 the Constitution was amended after the Registrar of Societies had approved the draft submitted to it and had made some changes as the Registrar was empowered to do. Section 11(b) of the original Constitution thus became broader and now comes in four sub-clauses namely 11(a), 11(b), 11(c) and 11(d). Under the present Constitution (as amended) the Management Committee may convene a disciplinary committee to inquire into the conduct of any member who, in the opinion of the Management Committee, has acted in a manner prejudicial to the association. The Management Committee, may after considering the report of the disciplinary committee, suspend or expel the member. The member, however, may appeal against any such orders to the General Meeting of the association. Clause 11(d) as it now stands after amendment and approval by the Registrar of Societies reads as follows:

‘11(d) The member being expelled shall be entitled to appeal to a General Meeting against the decision of the Management Committee made pursuant to the aforementioned. A General Meeting shall be convened by the Management Committee as soon as practicable for that purpose on request by such Member, provided that such request shall be made within two (2) weeks of receipt of the decision of the Management Committee. The decision of the General Meeting shall be by way of a simple majority and shall be final and binding on such member. If no such request is made or such request is not made within the prescribed time period, the decision of the Management Committee shall be final and binding on such member.’

5 The key passage is the last sentence of cl 11(d) – ‘if no such request is made or such request is not made within the prescribed time period, the decision of the Management Committee shall be final and binding on such member’. The plaintiff’s case is that this passage, admittedly re-drafted by the Registrar of Societies, was submitted to the latter for approval in a form that was contrary to what the General Meeting had endorsed. Mr Liew submitted that when the proposal to amend the original cl 11(b) was placed before the 84^th General Meeting of the association, the members agreed to a suggestion that there be provision for an appeal to the courts. Accordingly, the draft amendment that was approved read as follows:

‘If the member refuses, omits or neglects to attend the Disciplinary Committee meeting in answer to the notice calling upon him to do so, the Disciplinary Committee may nevertheless proceed in his absence. The Disciplinary Committee, at the conclusion of such hearing shall report to the Management Committee its findings and recommendations. The Management Committee may, after considering the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, expel or suspend the member or impose any other appropriate penalty. Notice of this shall be sent to the member. An appeal shall lie from the decision of the Management Committee to a General Meeting or to any Court of Law.’

6 However, when the Management Committee submitted the draft to the Registrar for approval, the last sentence read as:

‘An appeal shall lie from the decision of the Management Committee to any General Committee but not to any Court of Law.’ (my emphasis)

The rest of the sub-clause was as approved by the General Meeting. The present wording of sub-cl (d) was the result of amendments made by the Registrar of Societies who broke up the submitted sub-cl (d) into sub-cl (c), which is the unchanged part of the submitted sub-cl (d) and amending the latter part in the present form.

7 Mr Liew thus argued that the Management Committee had no right to submit a draft that was different from that approved by the General Meeting and, accordingly, the submitted draft was illegal and even though the...