Wakilii

Legat and Others v Barrett and Others (Civil Suit No. 745 of 1951 (0.S.))

East African Court of Appeal · [1954] EACA 13 · 1954 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons by trustees seeking declaration on whether charitable trust could be executed cy-près
Decision
Trust failed; funds to be distributed as part of residuary estate

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that where a trust deed directs the erection of a memorial hostel with detailed specifications but the fund becomes insufficient, the gift fails if the paramount intention was to create a memorial rather than to benefit a class of persons. The particular charitable purpose being impracticable and no general charitable intention being implied, the court cannot apply the fund cy-près and the trust funds revert to the residuary estate.

Outcome

Trust failed; funds to be distributed as part of residuary estate

Facts

In 1931, George Russell Mayers executed a trust deed providing a fund of Sh. 1,000,000 to erect and endow a memorial hostel named after his son Horace Russell Mayers, who was killed in action in 1917. The trust deed contained detailed directions regarding the location, construction, equipment, staffing, and operation of the hostel, which was to be used by persons of pure European descent nominated by the Kenya League of Mercy. Users would pay according to their means, with those without means receiving free board, lodging, and travel expenses. The settlor died in 1939, but the gift was suspended during his daughter's lifetime until 1945. By 1950, due to the fall in the value of money and the rise in building costs, the fund was found insufficient to execute the settlor's directions. The trustees applied by originating summons for a declaration on whether the trust could be executed cy-près.

Issues

  1. Whether a charitable trust established by trust deed could be carried into effect in the mode specified by the settlor.
  2. Whether the settlor had such a general charitable intent that another mode of carrying out that intent cy-près should be substituted.
  3. Whether the trust funds should be paid over to the residuary estate if the trust could not be executed cy-près.

Orders

  • Declaration that the charitable trust cannot be carried into effect in the mode specified by the settlor.
  • Declaration that the settlor did not have a general charitable intent permitting cy-près application.
  • Trust funds to be paid over to the first defendant to be distributed as part of the residuary estate.
  • Costs of all parties to be paid out of the funds of the trust estate.

Rules and key headnotes

Charitable Trusts — Cy-près Doctrine — Jurisdiction
The court has jurisdiction to apply the doctrine of cy-près only when it is clearly established that the directions of the testator or settlor cannot be carried into effect.
Charitable Trusts — General vs Particular Charitable Intent
Where a gift is given for a particular charitable purpose but the paramount intention is to give property for a general charitable purpose with directions as to manner of execution, the gift for the general charitable purpose remains good even if the precise directions cannot be carried out, and the court can direct a scheme cy-près. Where no such paramount general intention can be inferred and the gift is for a particular purpose which cannot be carried out, the whole gift fails.
Charitable Trusts — Particular vs General Intent — Memorial Trusts
Where a trust deed contains detailed and particular directions to erect and equip a memorial hostel, and the paramount intention is to provide a memorial rather than to benefit a particular class of persons, the gift is for a particular purpose and no general charitable intention can be inferred.
Charitable Trusts — Failure of Particular Purpose
Where the mode of providing a memorial, while a charitable act, is the only charitable act the settlor intended or contemplated, and there is no general charitable intention of benefiting a class of persons, the court cannot apply the fund cy-près when the particular charitable purpose becomes impracticable.
Charitable Trusts — Construction of Trust Instruments — Particularity of Directions
The more particular the directions given in a trust instrument, the less possible it is to construe the instrument as indicating a paramount intention to benefit a particular class of persons rather than to achieve a specific purpose.

Cases cited (7)

  • In re Wilson [1913] 1 Ch 314
  • Attorney-General v Boultbee (1794) 2 Ves Jr 380
  • Mills v Farmer (1815) 19 Ves Jr 483
  • Cherry v Mott (1836) 1 My & Cr 123
  • Biscoe v Jackson (1887) 35 Ch D 460
  • In re Good's Will Trusts, Oliver v Batten [1950] WN 435
  • In re Packe [1918] 1 Ch 437

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Legat and Others v Barrett and Others (Civil Suit No. 745 of 1951 (0.S.)) [1954] EACA 13 (1 January 1954)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.