![The market-builder who restrained the market [Part 2]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PHOTO-2026-08-25-17-16-32-360x180.jpg)
![The merchant preceding the Prophetic mission [Part 1]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/01-360x180.jpg)
The Western Cape High Court rejected Dr T Bassier’s urgent bid for copies of Moslem Cemetery Board bank statements, while ordering the Board to submit financial records for confidential judicial inspection before its election later this month.
By ANWAR OMAR
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an urgent application by Dr T Bassier seeking copies of the Mowbray Cemetery Board’s bank statements while simultaneously ordering the Board to submit its financial records for confidential judicial inspection ahead of a pivotal election scheduled for later this month.
Judge Gayaat da Silva Salie handed down the ruling on Tuesday, August 4 just weeks before the Mowbray Cemetery Board (MCB) is due to hold a special general meeting (SGM) on August 23, 2026, to elect a new governing body, a process the court set in motion after finding in March that the Board’s existing management had been invalidly constituted.
Background: a board under court supervision
The dispute is the latest chapter in litigation that began with a March 2026 judgment in which the court found the MCB’s governing structure unlawful and ordered its reconstitution. That judgment appointed an Independent Panel to oversee elections and reserved ongoing supervisory jurisdiction for the court, a role it has exercised through a series of judicial directives since its inception.
Dr Bassier, an ordinary member of the MCB association, approached the court seeking copies, and not mere sight, of the MCB’s bank statements dating back to May 2020, including records of a linked account known as the Mowbray Cemetery Bursary Fund. He argued the disclosure was necessary to allow members to cast informed votes at the upcoming election and to enable an independent forensic audit, citing what he called discrepancies in the Board’s non-profit registration status.
The Board opposed the application. Acting chairperson Mr Faizel Sayed argued that audited financial statements up to February 2024 were sufficient, that Dr Bassier had already been offered the opportunity to inspect (not copy) the records, and that the application amounted to a “scandalising campaign” against him personally.
The ruling
Justice da Silva Salie sided largely with the Board on the central question, finding that Dr Bassier was not entitled to copies of the bank statements. The judgment noted that the original order restricted access to financial records to whichever governing body assumes control of the MCB after the election, not to individual association members seeking to conduct their own investigations beforehand.
However, the court adopted a middle-ground solution by ordering what the judge termed a “judicial peep”, essentially amounting to a limited, confidential inspection of the Board’s banking records exclusively by the court, without disclosure to either party. The Board was directed to deliver bank statements for accounts held with Standard Bank, covering March 1, 2026, to August 4, 2026, to the Registrar by 2pm on August 5, 2026, to be kept in a separate confidential file.
The stated purpose of the inspection is to allow the court to satisfy itself that sufficient funds exist to cover the costs of the election process, including a secure digital voting platform, and not to adjudicate over any dispute relating to the Board’s financial conduct.
Bursary fund ruled lawful
The judgment also rejected Dr Bassier’s contention that the Board was barred from operating a bursary fund. While the court’s earlier ruling had restricted use of cemetery land to burial-related purposes, it did not confine the Board’s broader activities as an Association Not for Gain. These broader activities include the bursary initiative, which was apparently funded by donations and plant sales, and was found not to be unlawful.
Costs shift to the Board
In a further development, the court varied its earlier cost order relating to the Independent Panel. Previously, the Panel’s costs were to be shared equally between Dr Bassier and the Board. Justice da Silva Salie ruled that, given that the Panel’s role had evolved into facilitating the election for the Board’s own benefit, its remuneration and expenses should now be borne solely by the MCB. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the interlocutory application itself.
You may also want to read
Going forward
The judgment arrives amid a tight timeline: nominations for the Board’s 11 seats opened on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, with a closing date of Tuesday, August 11, and a shortlist of up to 22 candidates due by August 18, ahead of the August 23 election at the Castle of Good Hope.
The court noted that both Dr Bassier and Mr Sayed had traded serious allegations of bad faith against one another but declined to make any findings on those disputes, saying it was neither necessary nor appropriate to do so in these proceedings.
