Since the parties in this case were agreed that there was only one constitution, the first question which the court must necessarily consider in a matter of this nature is whether the action of the first defendant was authorised by any rules of the constitution. The court will not interfere in the decision of the members of a club or an association professing to act under their rules, unless it can be shown that either that the rules are contrary to natural justice, or that what has been done is contrary to the rules, or that there has been mala fides or malice in arriving at that decision: see Dawkins v. Antrobus (1881) 17 Ch.D. 615, C.A. The courts have laid down that in the case of voluntary associations they will not tolerate any change in its constitution without there being an express provision in the rules for amendments or changes, unless all the members of the society consent.
GHANA MUSLIMS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL AND OTHERS v. SALIFU AND OTHERS [1975] 2 GLR 246 [1975] SLR (CA) 24 · Court of Appeal · 1975 · AZU CRABBE CJ
Read it in the judgment