Chief Ezechukwu Okafor is a wealthy land owner and hedge fund manager from Yorkshire
England. As a proud British citizen who drives joy in alleviating some of the problems of
society, he had engaged in some charitable activities in the year 2015. Due to his lack of
knowledge of the law on charities, Chief Ezechukwu Okafor has invited you to examine the
legal and charitable status of the following bequests that he made in the year 2015.
a) A residue of £5,000 to promote the end of medical research of birds.
b) Grant to the retired workers of Obiajunwa university of law who are struggling to
make ends meet on their pensions.
c) Grant to the retired workers of Obiajunwa university of law who are struggling to
make ends meet on their pensions.
d) ) £2,000 to campaign about the preservation of the rain forest in Ogoni land of
Nigeria.
e) £1,000 fund to provide facilities for young boys of Bucks New University to develop
their football skills
Answer
This particular given scenario talks about the charitable trust. Thus, the main problem in this
scenario is whether the allotments of Chief Ezecukwu comes under the category of charitable
purpose and advances any of the items contained in section 3(1) Charities Act 2011. Thus, for a
purpose to be a charitable purpose, for the purposes of section 2 of the Charities Act, it must fall
within one of the categories listed in section 3(1). It reads as follows:
“A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the following descriptions of
purposes –
a) The prevention or relief of poverty;
b) The advancement of education;
c) The advancement of religion;
d) The advancement of health or the saving of lives;
e) The advancement of citizenship or community development;
f) The advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
g) The advancement of amateur sport;
h) The advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of
religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
i) The advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
, j) The relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or
other disadvantage;
k) The advancement of animal welfare.
l) The promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the
police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services.
m) Any other purposes…that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of,
any purposes falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (l)…”
Most of the first twelve of these are derived from the case law, much of which refers back to the
Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. Many have been accepted as charitable for
some time. The relief of poverty, the advancement of education, and the advancement of religion,
for example, were all recognised by Lord Macnaghten as three of the four established “heads” of
charity in the leading 19th century House of Lords decision in Income Tax Special Purposes
Commissioners v Pemsel. It has further clarified in Scottish Burial Society v Glasgow
Corporation.
In fact, the Charitable trusts are different from private purpose trusts, because An express private
trust cannot be established unless three “certainties” such as certainty of intention, certainty of
subject matter and certainty of object are present. However, the rules relating to charitable trusts
are slightly different. The first two of the three “certainties” must be present in order to create a
valid express charitable trust. However, there is no need for the object of a charitable trust to be
certain because charitable trusts are trusts for exclusively charitable purposes, not for named or
ascertainable beneficiaries. This means that – unlike private trusts – as discussed in the case of
Hauxwell v Barton-upon-Humber Urban District Council charitable trusts do not have
beneficiaries with the right to enforce the trustees’ obligation. Of course, charitable trusts do
benefit individuals in practice. However, a potential beneficiary of a charitable trust has no
equitable right to the trust property, nor does he or she have standing to bring an action against the
charity trustees to enforce the trust.
Likewise, it has been established in the case of Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary by
Mummery LJ that ‘Under English law charity has always received special treatment. It often takes
the form of trust; but it is a public trust for the promotion of purposes beneficial to the community,
not a trust for private individuals. It is therefore subject to special rules governing registration,
administration, taxation and duration. Although not a state institution, a charity is subject to the
constitutional protection of the Crown as parens patriae, acting through the Attorney-General, to
the state supervision of the Charity Commissioners, and to the judicial supervision of the High
Court. This regime applies whether the charity takes the form of a trust or of an incorporated body’.
Then, let’s discuss about the bequests that Chief Ezecukwu made in the year 2015 one by one.
England. As a proud British citizen who drives joy in alleviating some of the problems of
society, he had engaged in some charitable activities in the year 2015. Due to his lack of
knowledge of the law on charities, Chief Ezechukwu Okafor has invited you to examine the
legal and charitable status of the following bequests that he made in the year 2015.
a) A residue of £5,000 to promote the end of medical research of birds.
b) Grant to the retired workers of Obiajunwa university of law who are struggling to
make ends meet on their pensions.
c) Grant to the retired workers of Obiajunwa university of law who are struggling to
make ends meet on their pensions.
d) ) £2,000 to campaign about the preservation of the rain forest in Ogoni land of
Nigeria.
e) £1,000 fund to provide facilities for young boys of Bucks New University to develop
their football skills
Answer
This particular given scenario talks about the charitable trust. Thus, the main problem in this
scenario is whether the allotments of Chief Ezecukwu comes under the category of charitable
purpose and advances any of the items contained in section 3(1) Charities Act 2011. Thus, for a
purpose to be a charitable purpose, for the purposes of section 2 of the Charities Act, it must fall
within one of the categories listed in section 3(1). It reads as follows:
“A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the following descriptions of
purposes –
a) The prevention or relief of poverty;
b) The advancement of education;
c) The advancement of religion;
d) The advancement of health or the saving of lives;
e) The advancement of citizenship or community development;
f) The advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
g) The advancement of amateur sport;
h) The advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of
religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
i) The advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
, j) The relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or
other disadvantage;
k) The advancement of animal welfare.
l) The promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the
police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services.
m) Any other purposes…that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of,
any purposes falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (l)…”
Most of the first twelve of these are derived from the case law, much of which refers back to the
Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601. Many have been accepted as charitable for
some time. The relief of poverty, the advancement of education, and the advancement of religion,
for example, were all recognised by Lord Macnaghten as three of the four established “heads” of
charity in the leading 19th century House of Lords decision in Income Tax Special Purposes
Commissioners v Pemsel. It has further clarified in Scottish Burial Society v Glasgow
Corporation.
In fact, the Charitable trusts are different from private purpose trusts, because An express private
trust cannot be established unless three “certainties” such as certainty of intention, certainty of
subject matter and certainty of object are present. However, the rules relating to charitable trusts
are slightly different. The first two of the three “certainties” must be present in order to create a
valid express charitable trust. However, there is no need for the object of a charitable trust to be
certain because charitable trusts are trusts for exclusively charitable purposes, not for named or
ascertainable beneficiaries. This means that – unlike private trusts – as discussed in the case of
Hauxwell v Barton-upon-Humber Urban District Council charitable trusts do not have
beneficiaries with the right to enforce the trustees’ obligation. Of course, charitable trusts do
benefit individuals in practice. However, a potential beneficiary of a charitable trust has no
equitable right to the trust property, nor does he or she have standing to bring an action against the
charity trustees to enforce the trust.
Likewise, it has been established in the case of Gaudiya Mission and others v Brahmachary by
Mummery LJ that ‘Under English law charity has always received special treatment. It often takes
the form of trust; but it is a public trust for the promotion of purposes beneficial to the community,
not a trust for private individuals. It is therefore subject to special rules governing registration,
administration, taxation and duration. Although not a state institution, a charity is subject to the
constitutional protection of the Crown as parens patriae, acting through the Attorney-General, to
the state supervision of the Charity Commissioners, and to the judicial supervision of the High
Court. This regime applies whether the charity takes the form of a trust or of an incorporated body’.
Then, let’s discuss about the bequests that Chief Ezecukwu made in the year 2015 one by one.
