Patrick McFall & Others v Ishmael Lightbourne

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Fitzcharles, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 August 2023
• Docket Number: 2023/CLE/gen/00208
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)

IN THE MATTER the Companies Act (Chapter 308, Statute Laws of the Bahamas 2001)

AND IN THE MATTER Bethel Baptist Church's Constitution and By-Laws dated April 1982 and its Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 28 July 2008

BETWEEN

Patrick McFall & Others

1 ^st – 5 ^th Claimants

and

Ishmael Lightbourne (in his capacity as Vice President and Moderator of Bethel Baptist Church)

Defendant

Before

Hon. Justice Simone I FitzCharles

2023/CLE/gen/00208

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Commercial Division

Appearances:

Sharanna S Bodie for the Claimants

Gail Lockhart-Charles KC with Tracy Wells for the Defendant (in his capacity as Vice President and Moderator of Bethel Baptist Church)

RULING

Fitzcharles, J.

Introduction

1 On Saturday 22 April 2023, a group of persons who called themselves the “Concerned Members” of the historic Bethel Baptist Church made an ex parte application for an interlocutory injunction. They are Patrick McFall, Lavette McFall, Laurie Bethell, Trevor Bethell and Deborah Hall (collectively the “claimants” in this action). These claimants, pursuant to Part 17 of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2022 (the “CPR”), sought inter alia to stop impending elections for a new pastor, and succeeded in doing so about 2 days before the planned and announced elections were to occur. The fruit of their application was an interim Order granted by the Honourable Justice Donna Newton in the following terms:

“This Court Orders that:

• 1. The Bethel Baptist Church elections for Pastor, Church Officers, Members at Large for the Executive Council and Trustees scheduled for 24 ^th April A.D., 2023 are hereby stayed for a period of seven (7) days pending the hearing of the Notice of Application pursuant to the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2022 Part 17 filed herein on 10 ^th March, A.D., 2023.

• 2. That the costs of this application be costs in the cause…”

2 This Court subsequently received the application for hearing. During and after hearing full argument in relation to the injunction by Ms Sharanna Bodie for the claimants and Mrs Gail Lockhart-Charles KC for the defendant, I ordered that the interim injunction stay in place until the delivery of a determination on the claimants' Notice of Application filed on 10 May 2023. This decision concerns the questions whether the ex parte interim injunction should be continued and whether the interlocutory injunction in terms originally sought by the claimants ought to be granted.

3 By their Notice of Application the claimants seek the following relief:

• (i) that the Defendant and the Executive Council of Bethel Baptist Church be prohibited from managing the spiritual and corporate affairs of the Bethel Baptist Church until the determination of this matter.

• (ii) that an independent Interim Moderator or Moderators be appointed to oversee and manage the affairs of Bethel Baptist Church, subject to the provisions contained herein and to the Constitution and By-Laws and Memorandum and Articles of Association, until further Order of this Court.

• (iii) that Ishmael Lightbourne, the Executive Council, Church employees, and leaders of all Committees, Auxiliaries, Departments or any other group of the Church be ordered to turn over all pending matters related to the Church to the appointed Interim Moderator or Moderators and to assist the Interim Moderator or Moderators by providing any information, document, electronic or paper file, software, hardware, report, work product of any kind whatsoever whether completed or not, access to banking accounts, keys or other access to Church doors, offices, drawers, cabinets, gates, security codes, or anything else whatsoever that is needed to ensure the smooth continuation of the spiritual and corporate affairs of the Church.

• (iv) that the pending elections, including but not limited to the election of Officers, Trustees, and other Executive Council Members, be deferred until further Order of this Court.

• (v) that all policies approved and/or implemented by the Executive Council since September 2021, which have not been approved by the Members in a proper meeting of the Church, be suspended until further Order of this Court.

• (vi) that all decisions made by this Executive Council since September 2021, which have not been approved by the Members in a proper meeting of the Church, be suspended until further Order of this Court.

• (vii) that the servants and or agents of Ishmael Lightbourne and other members of the Executive Council be prohibited from interfering with the Interim Moderator's or Moderators' oversight and management of Bethel Baptist Church until further Order of this Court.

• (viii) that the servants and/or agents of Ishmael Lightbourne and other members of the Executive Council be prohibited from interfering with the work of the Auxiliaries, Departments, Committees, etc. of the Church until further Order of this Court.

• (ix) that each party have liberty to apply.

• (x) that the costs of this application be the costs in the cause.

4 The trouble in the Bethel Baptist Church which prompted the claimants to dash to the Court on Saturday 22 April 2023 is summarized, by their account, as follows:

• “i. On September 17, 2021, the pastor of Bethel Baptist Church passed away. The Church did not have any specific contingency plans in place to address the untimely death of their Pastor. As a result, the Church is obligated to be governed by the Constitution and By-Laws dated April 1982 (“Constitution”), and its Articles and Memorandum of Association dated 28 ^th July, 2008. The Constitution specifically does not permit any external or internal boards, committees, or organizations whatsoever to usurp the executive governmental or policy-making powers of the members of the Church.

• “ii. In contravention of this, the Defendant immediately declared himself to be the new President of the Church automatically and without the approval of the Church. He also declared that the Executive Council, now under his leadership, has the power to make whatever decisions it wishes without the need to seek the approval or ratification of the Church. The Claimants object to these declarations as they contravene the Constitution. Furthermore, the Defendant and the Executive Council under his leadership decided to disenfranchise hundreds of members of the Church by implementing what amounts to a membership fee for the Church whereby only persons who paid at least One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per year could be a member in good standing and thereby eligible to vote or participate in leadership of the Church. Many persons in the Church, exceeding One Hundred (100) persons who were comfortable to go on record, objected to this. Despite the overwhelming objections, the Defendant blatantly disregarded and disrespected the express wishes of hundreds of members by not budging nor showing any meaningful consideration for a less divisive alternative.

• “iii. To resolve the differences, we asked the Defendant and the Executive Council under his leadership to seek the opinion of an independent attorney or to have these matters resolved by mediation. They refused every attempt. Instead, the Claimant's efforts were met with a series of harmful, humiliating, disrespectful, and hurtful retaliatory behaviours by the Defendant and his closest allies, including but not limited to termination of staff members, insults, false public libelous statements, removal from ministerial offices, and many other forms of victimization, intimidation and bias against any and almost everyone who objected.

• “iv. The Defendant and the Executive Council under his leadership have refused to discuss the outstanding issues with the Claimants to amicably and quietly resolve these matters within Bethel Baptist Church. As long standing and committed members of the historic Bethel Baptist Church, the Claimaints seek the help of the Court to intervene in these matters.”

5 The details of the evidence in support of the claimants' application are set forth in the Affidavit of Patrick McFall, the Affidavit of Lavette McFall, the Affidavit of Nichelle Bethell, the Affidavit of Laurie Bethell the Affidavit of Deborah Hall, the Affidavit of Cherica Whylly, the Affidavit of Cedric Whylly and the Affidavit of Chenique Wallace all filed on filed on 10 March 2023, along with the Second Affidavit of Patrick Mc Fall and the Second Affidavit of Lavette McFall both filed on 10 May 2023.

6 Amongst the evidence produced for the claimants is a list of 100 signatures. The affiant, Patrick McFall, explained in his Affidavit that these were signatures of some of the members of the Bethel Baptist Church who are similarly concerned and who support the claimants' approach to the Court to resolve the disputes in the Church.

7 At the hearing of the application for an injunction, the Court received the affidavits and submissions of the parties relevant to the injunction. The claimants contended that they had to approach the Court on an urgency basis because since they served the defendant with their originating application, supporting affidavits and notice of application for an injunction, he “displayed a complete disregard for the existence of this matter and the fact that the Court has been asked to decide on the issues raised herein.” The claimants reported that the defendant, after being served with their applications which were filed in the Court, evinced an intention to proceed quickly with elections before their applications could be heard. They contend they were therefore prompted to rush to the Court after reading in a Church bulletin dated Sunday 26 March 2023, the defendant's announcement as follows:

“We are seeking advice from our legal Counsel, Mrs Lockhart Charles KC, and will revert to members upon receipt of that advice as to the directions the Church should be taking in this matter. In the meanwhile,...