Archbishop Gilbert Deya, Deceased v Charity Commission for England and Wales

The appeal herein, brought by the Appellant against a decision of the Respondent dated 3 October 2024, was part-heard, remotely, on Monday, 9 June 2025 and was re-listed for completion on Tuesday, 26 August 2025, a date subsequently vacated. The decision dated 3 October 2024 was the only decision of the Respondent in a long list of appealable decisions made by the Respondent in respect of the Charity, none of which were the subject of an appeal by the Appellant, the Charity itself, nor any other Appellant who may have had sufficient standing to bring an appeal.

The sole issue in this appeal within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was a challenge to the Respondent’s decision to decline to discharge the appointment of Interim Managers to work alongside the trustees of the Charity, Gilbert Deya Ministries and to conduct a review of the Charity’s financial governance and process (albeit the terms of the appointment of the Interim Managers were subsequently varied to vest the general management, administration and operation of the Charity in the Interim Managers to the exclusion of the Charity’s trustees who, nevertheless, retained responsibility for the Charity’s religious services and ministry) – a variation that was itself appealable but that was not appealed.

Oral evidence was heard from the Appellant himself and one of his witnesses on 9 June 2025. One further witness for the Appellant was to be cross-examined (and possibly, briefly, re-examined if desired). Two witnesses of the Respondent were to be cross-examined (and, briefly, re-examined if desired). It was envisaged that brief oral closing submissions from, or on behalf of, both parties would then be invited.

In an email dated Friday, 19 June 2025, the Appellant’s solicitors and representatives, advised of the tragic death of the Appellant in a road traffic accident in Kenya on 17 June 2025 and requested that these proceedings be ‘stayed’.

Case Management Directions dated 17 July and 18 August 2025 and 24 March 2026 were issued by the Tribunal addressing the developing circumstances that arose.

In those said Directions, it was noted that here was no evidence that any person had been issued with a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration in respect of the late Appellant’s estate – even if it were possible to have someone take over, and continue, the conduct of the appeal on behalf of the late Appellant and whether the late, Appellant’s representatives, his solicitors, might consider, if they had not already done so, that this appeal should be withdrawn in the circumstances that now existed; whether the appeal must end or be conducted to completion by an alternative living person, who had sufficient standing, who could be substituted as Appellant for the late Appellant and whether this appeal was a cause of action that survived the death of the late Appellant for the benefit of his estate that could be continued by the late Appellant’s personal representative or whether the appeal could be continued by a person with sufficient standing as to take over and continue the appeal, in effect, on behalf of the Charity and that the appeal be continued in that manner.

This appeal was an appeal by the late Appellant only as a person in his capacity as a person who was, or may have been, affected by the impugned Order of the Respondent, pursuant to Schedule 6 to the Charities Act (‘the Act’), he having no standing to bring these proceedings on behalf of the Charity.

The late Appellant’s representatives and solicitors had, in an undated and unsigned representations, sent in an email dated 16 September 2025, considerably later than the directed 28 days to make such representations, only sent to me on 20 March 2026, submitted that these proceedings should not be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (‘the Rules’) as having no reasonable prospects of success. The appeal was not struck out at that time.

In the said Case Management Directions of the Tribunal dated 24 March 2026, the late Appellant’s representatives and solicitors, T&A Solicitors, were directed, within 21 days, to either apply to substitute the late Appellant with some other person, having regard to the contents of the Tribunal’s Directions dated 18 August 2025 in that regard, to be considered on the merits or, in the alternative, to apply to withdraw these proceedings, failing which this appeal may be struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(b) of the Rule, for non-compliance with a Tribunal Direction.

The late Appellant’s representatives and solicitors were further directed that should there be a failure to comply with those Directions, the appeal may well be struck out, too, pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Rules as having no reasonable prospects of success, that issue being re-visited.

By email dated 6 April 2026, copied to the Respondent, the Appellant’s representatives and solicitors replied to advise that throughout the period of the 6-month stay period, they had made extensive efforts to obtain instructions from those who might have an interest in the continuation of this appeal, in particular, the United Evangelical Church in Kenya; the family of the late Appellant; and members of the congregation of the late Appellant's ministry in the United Kingdom but that, despite those efforts, they had not received any clear instructions from any of those parties, nor from any other person, in relation to these proceedings and that they were not aware of any Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration having been issued in respect of the late Appellant's estate, nor of any personal representative having been appointed.

The late Appellant’s representatives and solicitors submitted that, in those circumstances, they were without instructions and unable to comply with the directions set out at paragraph 1 of the Directions dated 24 March 2026 and were unable to make an application for substitution, as no person has come forward who is willing, able, or possessed of sufficient legal interest to be substituted for the late Appellant and that, equally, they had no instructions to make an application to withdraw the appeal on behalf of the estate.

The late Appellant’s representatives and solicitors, in those circumstances therefore, made application that the Tribunal remove them from the record and that it ceased to act as solicitors and representatives for the late Appellant with immediate effect and that the Tribunal would wish to consider what course to take in light of the circumstances outlined, including whether to exercise its powers under Rule 8(3) of the Rules to strike out the appeal as having no reasonable prospects of success.

The Tribunal, accordingly, struck out this appeal, there now existing no circumstances whereby anyone could be invited, on behalf of the late Appellant, to make representations, pursuant to Rule 8(4) of the Rules, as to why this appeal should not be struck out.