Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.
Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.
Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.
Interpretation of statutes — presumption against retrospective operation — distinction between alteration in procedure and change in substantive law.
Legislation — Legal Age of Majority Act, 1982 s 3(3) — whether retrospective.
The Legal Age of Majority Act, 1982, effects an alteration of the substantive law in that it deprives the guardian of a major ward of a vested right to sue for seduction damages; it is not retrospective in effect. It is a fundamental rule of construction in our law that there is a strong presumption that retrospective operation is not to be given to an enactment so as to remove or impair existing rights or obligations unless such a construction is clearly intended or arises as a necessary implication, for instance where it is expressly retrospective, or deals with past events, or concerns matters of procedure, practice or evidence.
Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.