Yekinney Renner & Ors v Mohamed Langley [1924] SLCA 6 (23 December 1924)

23rd Dtcem. ber, 1924. YEKINNEY RENNER and Others Appellants . v. )fOHAM~IED I.1AXGLEY. alias GHEWA - Respondent .1 Appeal, 'as of 1·i,ght, where the appeal involves some claim, 1·especling prozJerty of the value of £~00-Appeal at t7~e discretion of the Court if tl1e question is one of g1·eat gene?·al or public impo1·tance-N o evidence to this effect . The facts of this case are sufficiently set out in the judgment. Appli cation for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a judgment of the Full Court of Appeal. J. F . Boston and Betts for the Appellants. Wright for the Respondent. LEVY, Acting J. Tbis is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Full Court granting an injunction against certain per­ sons who took part and assisted in the performance of religious service at a Mosque by a person not a priest. Mr. Boston endeavoured to profess that he could bring the f'ase under rule 2 (o) of the Appeal Rule s,2 by stating that the valu e of the Mosque far exceeded £300. Quite apart from the fact that we have no evidence on this point, it is obvious that the case involves no claim or question respecting the property in the :MoRque, and that itc; '.-alue iR absolut ely immaterial. When asked by the Court if he relied on this rule, he said he also relied on rule 2 (b).3 As to this, he has nled no affidavit to show to the Court tnat, in the words of the Order in Council of 15th February, 1909, this is a case which, by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise, ought to be submitted to His Majesty in Council. What I take to be a typical case of " great general or puolic " importance " is that of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria v. Glass, 1 Moore, P.C.N.S ., p. 449, where special lea\e to appeal was given on the ground that the question raised was one of public intere st involving the constit ution al rights 1 ."' ee p. 126 . . s See Vol. III, p. 707. ssee Vol. III, l>· 767. 157 of a Colonial Legislative Assembly; or again, that of Lindo v. Barrett, 9 1foore, P.C.C., p. 456, where leave was given to appeal, though the subject in dispute was undel' the appealable nlue of £300, because, as IJord Justice Knight Bruce said, " the question involved is one of importance to the whole of the " community of the Island of Jamaica." The question in the application before this Court concerns lhe worshippers at one of several Mosques which minister to the spiritual needs of the 1f uslims, who are a small minority in this town. The matter, in one worcl, is purely parochial. Even if there had been affidavits in support of this motion, which, as I have said, there were not, it is difficult to see how it could be brought within rule 2 (b) of the Orcler in Council. For this reason the application m11st be dismissed with costs. McDONNELL, Acting C .. J. I agree. PRIOR, Acting J. I agree. 11 RENNER CI'D OTKERS v. LANGLEY . LEvY, ACTING J.