What is the purpose of consolidating and codifying legislation Totally free nude adult dating
82] the following factors must be taken into consideration:— (a) The object of the Proclamation was to create a common law for South West Africa which was already a living, active system in the Cape of Good Hope.
(6) (rf) On the 1st day of January, 1920, there were in existence in the Union the various Provincial and Local Divisions of the Supreme Court of South Africa with a common Appellate Division.
The problems of reception and codification discussed by Dr. The South West African case is ” In coming to a conclusion as to the true meaning of Proc.
Allott in his article on ” The Authority of English Decisions in Colonial Courts ” in  1 J. But a practice, later shown to be erroneous, cannot be regarded as the law in force in 1891; the true law must be looked to.” The debt was therefore attached.
Thus in Division was the court of appeal from the Southern Rhodesian Court. 731, that the law in Southern Rhodesia was the same in 1917 as in the Union. In my view, decisions of the Appellate Division in civil matters given before 1st July, 1955, . Public policy is variable and decisions on it have less force in subsequent cases than those on matters of law. The principle to be extracted from the cases quoted above appears to be that the reception of a system of law in any country, while it marks the beginning of a new development, causes no break in the life of the common law whenever and wherever the common law applied was a true interpretation of that law and this is also the aim of the courts of the country into which it has been received.
Lest previous exemptions should fall away with the repeal of Law No.
That implied that there was a common law of South Africa which was 84 («) The common law of the Cape of Good Hope was on the 1st of January, 1920, not something separate and distinct from the common law of the rest of the Union, but part and parcel of it.
In my opinion, it was in effect the South African Law as existing and applied in the Cape of Good Hope that was introduced into this Territory on the 1st of January, 1920.
This view finds support, in my opinion, in the Privy Council case of giving the High Court the same jurisdiction as the Cape Court] meant no more than that this Court being equal in status with the Cape Provincial Division was free to follow one of its decisions and should in fact always endeavour to do so but was, just as that Division itself, free to depart therefrom, if convinced that it is clearly wrong.
(g) had come on appeal from this Court to the Appellate Division and that case had been decided here in conformity with the eventual Appellate Division’s decision in that case, would that Court have ruled that this Court should have followed the wrong decision of Mtembu p.
28 of 1865 (Natal) such previous exemptions are deemed to be granted under the later Act.