What is the purpose of consolidating and codifying legislation
199)]; it is used again and again in the sense of reason or ground for a contract, and I am unable to find any indication that it was ever used in any sense equivalent to the English ‘ consideration ‘.” Conradie’s case “(h) ” («) It was clearly, in my opinion, also not the intention of the Legislature that the iaw should have remained static here in terms of the law as existing and applied in the Cape of Good Hope as at the 1st of January, 1920. In other words, whatever a Cape Court may have decided prior to 1920, a subsequent different decision by the Appellate Division must be read as if the effect of the later decision was already operative on the first day of January, 1920.
393, said that ” From 1917 to 1938 the criminal law as administered in Swaziland was governed by the terms of this statute”. 399, summing up the history of Swaziland law prior to 1938 the Board said:— ” The position, therefore, is that the present form of words was made the law of the Transvaal by Proclamation No. The first is the need to inform the subjects of the country whose administration has been undertaken of the criminal law which the new sovereign is to enforce, and the second is the need to inform judicial officers of the rules of a system of law which they are called upon to administer but which are difficult to ascertain. Thus the terms of reference of the 1883 Commission in paragraphs 35 and 38 that:— ” We find no uniformity in the criminal law or procedure, which until lately has been administered beyond the Kei.
In the proclamation as originally promulgated the test had differed from that in the Union of South Africa but an amendment had been introduced in 1944 and the Board found that this amendment resulted in a ” return to the requisites which the law of the Union of South Africa demanded ” (at p. Leading up to this finding the Court reviewed the history of the law. This proclamation was not quoted by the Board because the relevant provisions were re-enacted by another in 1907, No. On the one hand it may be argued that a code is an entirely new beginning, the previous law having been super- 1 Criminal Procedure and Evidence Proclamation dated 23rd December, 1938, in its 328th Section, read with the Fourth Schedule, repealed Transvaal Proclamation No.
In the Transvaal, before Union, the law on accomplice evidence was contained in Proclamation No. 4 of 1907, which read, in section 2:— ” The Roman-Dutch common law save in so far as the same has been heretofore or may from time to time hereafter be modified by statute shall be law in Swaziland and all statute law which is in force in Swaziland immediately prior to the date of the taking effect of this Proclamation shall save in so far as the same is hereby amended or altered or is inconsistent herewith or may hereafter be amended or altered shall be the Statute Law of Swaziland.” The Transvaal statute was therefore in force in Swaziland. 396-400, to the difficulties and dangers encountered when a matter is not properly argued. 398, for example, the Board said:— ” The present case . 16 of 1902 in so far as it referred to evidence or witnesses in criminal proceedings but made no reference to the Union Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act of 1917.
Thus section 100 (1) speaking of the sections of a kraal says:— ” . It is not to be expected, at a time when judicial officers require legislative assistance in ascertaining a law with which they have but lately come into contact, that the persons entrusted with the duty of drawing up the code, able though they may be, should be capable of producing a completely comprehensive statement. Justice for the application of the law relating to:— ” . 38 of 1927, under which exemptions may now be granted.
Lest previous exemptions should fall away with the repeal of Law No.