NOEL FREDERICK BARWELL Vs. JOHN JACKSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by my brothers Malik and Mootham and also of discussing the case with them. Having given the matter my careful consideration, I find myself in agreement with my brother Malik.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the members of an institution like, the Club in question must be governed by the contract by which they have agreed to be bound and that that contract is to be found in the Rules of the Club. I am, further, satisfied that there is no rule in the rules of this Club laying down the circumstances, and the manner, in which a dissolution of the club could take place. In fact, there is no rule providing for the dissolution of the Club. All that Rule 6 says is that, if a winding up or dissolution does take place, the property is to be distributed in a certain manner.... I agree with my brother Malik's opinion that this rule cannot fairly be interpreted as a rule providing for the dissolution of the Club. Its only object was to make it clear that, in case a winding up or dissolution ever took place-in circumstances and in a manner not specified - then, of the several classes of members, The only members who would be entitled to a share in the property, if any, would be the "permanent members". When and how a winding up or dissolution could take place is not laid down anywhere.

(3.) I also agree with my brother Malik in holding that, upon a true interpretation, the extinction of the Club is not a matter which can |be held to come within Rule 49.