Dr Aumeer & Ors vs L’Assemblée de Dieu – Mission Salut & Guerison

1988 MR 229
1988 SCJ 236
Ahnee, J

The applicants have applied for an interlocutory order to

prohibit the respondent, “by itself, its officers or members, from
using loudspeakers at any time on the premises occupied by the
respondent at Lamberty Road, Vacoas”.

In an affidavit in support of the application, the applicants,

who are resident of Lamberty Road, Vacoas, a residential area, aver
that the respondent uses a building rented by it as meeting place for
its members who pray there specially on Mondays, Wednesdays, and
Fridays from 16 to 19.00 hours and on Sundays from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30
a.m. and from 13.30 p.m. to 19.00 p.m. They aver that there are also
meetings on week days from 10 a.m. to noon.

The applicants have of course nothing against the members meeting

and praying as such. They only object to their use of loudspeakers for
the transmission of their prayers, songs and music which, they aver, is
a cause of nuisance, trouble and annoyance to them.

In an affidavit sworn on behalf of the respondent by one Samoogum

Dorasawmy, who described himself as the “Pasteur” of the respondent, it
is averred that –

(a) the building used by the respondent is not used as a

meeting place for the respondent’s members but is the
CHURCH of the Assemblée de Dieu at Vacoas;

(b) all prayers, songs and preachings are carried out in the
church itself, which is an enclosed structure and that all
activities therein are conducted so as to cause the minimum
of inconvenience to neighbours and the public at large (the
underlining is mine);

(c) the congregation meets as follows:- On Mondays, Wednesdays

and Fridays from 5.15 p.m. to 5.40 p.m. there are prayers
and songs, sung at a normal pitch and which does not
inconvenience anybody from 5.40 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. there is
a Sermon by one preacher without any music and from 6.15
p.m. to 6.30 p.m. prayer and songs again. On Sundays there
are prayers only from 6.30 a.m. to 7.30 a.m., then from
3.45 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. songs and prayers accompanied by
musical instruments; 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. sermon by a
preacher followed by communion Service until close down at
about 6.10 p.m.;

(d) only one loudspeaker is sometimes used during songs in the

church proper;

(e) the church has been in existence “at the same locality at
Vacoas for the past 15 years and that applicant No. 1 and
his wife (Dr Aumeer and his wife) have come to reside where
they are now, only since three years.”

The affidavit goes on to say –

 “We make no more noise or nuisance in our church than members of
other religions or faiths make in theirs – the Roman Catholics
for the tolling of bells or for their processions; the Hindoos
for prayers and songs in their temples and in private houses and
the Mohamaddans for the calling of their followers to prayers
several times every day very loudly, through loudspeakers, from
the tops of their minarets in their Mosques”.

I do not propose to launch into a discussion on the relative

noise for which members of various of the recognised faiths may or may
not be responsible by way of tolling of bells or by calling for prayers
from the minarets of the mosques. This Court is not responsible for
the daily enforcement of the Noise Act and can only intervene when a
case is brought before it.

The right of the citizen to freedom of thought and of religion,

including his right to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in
worship, teaching practice and observance, is no doubt a fundamental
one duly protected by the Constitution. That fundamental right,
however, has to be exercised in a civilized society as ours in such a
way as not to cause inconvenience to others.

People have the undisputed right to pray but in so doing they

must assume that God, however called, is not deaf and their prayers
should not cause inconvenience to those who have also an undisputed
right not to pray or to pray some other God.

This principle seems to be recognised by the Pasteur of the

respondent – although not by their counsel Mr Pitchen – when he says in
paragraph 6 of his affidavit that all activities in his church or its
meeting place are conducted “so as to cause the minimum of
inconvenience to neighbours”.

The only problem is that there is clear and unrebutted evidence

by means of a constat drawn up by an usher of this Court in respect of
what he was able to perceive in Lamberty Road on Monday the 9 May,
1988. The material part of the usher’s constat reads -

“I repaired at given address (the place of applicant No. 1, Dr

Aumeer) at 4.30 p.m. and I stayed up to 6.30 p.m. and during that
period prayers were being carried out, at the hall of the said
L’Assemblée de Dieu Mission Salut et Guerison situate at Lamberty
Road, Vacoas at a distance of about 50 metres.

On that particular day and time mass prayers were being

held in the hall of the L’Assemblée de Dieu Mission Salut et
Guerison situate as aforesaid. The prayers were officiated in a
continuous loud tone which were as if amplificated by the use of
a baffles.

I could also hear during that praying session continuous

wailing, crying, singing accompanied by musical instruments and
clapping of hands which sounds were audible and clear from the
place of Dr Aumeer as from outside and inside.

During that period continuous noise could be heard from the

singing groups accompanied by musical instruments from inside the
house of Dr Aumeer even the doors and windows were closed.

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1988\Dr Aumeer v L'Assemblée de Dieu - Mission Salut &

Guerison 1988 MR 229.doc
 The chanting of the prayers accompanied by musical
instruments could be heard continuously up to a distance of about
70 metres from the premises of the Assembly of God Mission Salut
et Guerison.”

The usher’s constat speaks for itself. The applicants have, in

my view, established a prima facie case that they are entitled to some
sort of interim protection against what may be one of the worst forms
of pollution of our modern society: noise even if such noise is not
calculated to annoy the children of God but to be a tribute to their
Creator.

I order that an interim order should issue preventing the

respondent, through its officers or members from using on the premises
occupied by them at Lamberty Road, Vacoas, loudspeakers capable of
transmitting whatever prayers, singing music or sermon take place
there, beyond the boundaries of the property occupied by the mission.

With costs, I certify as to counsel.

In Chambers

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1988\Dr Aumeer v L'Assemblée de Dieu - Mission Salut &

Guerison 1988 MR 229.doc