In Nourse v Van Heerden 1999 (2) SACR 198 (W), the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 was applied to interpret the effect of a repeal of a previous law on ongoing legal proceedings. The case involved a person who was charged with a criminal offence under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983. However, in 1996, the Act was repealed and replaced by the Admiralty Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 105 of 1996.
The accused person argued that the repeal of the old Act had the effect of terminating the legal proceedings against him. However, the court held that section 12(2)(e) of the Interpretation Act applied in this case, which provided that the repeal of a law shall not affect any legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any right or privilege.
The court noted that section 12(2)(e) was intended to ensure that the repeal of a law would not affect the legal validity of proceedings or remedies that were already initiated or available under the old law. Accordingly, the accused person's argument was rejected, and the legal proceedings against him continued under the new Act.
Therefore, the decision in Nourse v Van Heerden 1999 (2) SACR 198 (W) highlights the importance of section 12(2)(e) of the Interpretation Act in ensuring that the repeal of a law does not result in the loss of legal rights or remedies that were already available under the previous law.
Section 12(2)(e) of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 provides that “where a law repeals any other law, then, the repeal shall not affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege” etc. Explain with reference to Nourse v Van Heerden 1999 (2) SACR 198 (W)
1 answer
1 answer