LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE v VAN WYK 1988 (2) ZLR 217 (SC)

Flynote

Legal practitioner — admission of — amendment to s3(1) of Legal Practitioners (General) Regulations 1983 — applicant having obtained relevant degree before 31 December 1985 but not applying for admission until after that date — whether entitled to admission.

Headnote

Statutes — interpretation of — principles — implied repeal of earlier statute by amending legislation — when may be presumed.

The respondent had applied for admission as a legal practitioner. He had obtained a law degree in South Africa on 22 March 1984. Although he would, by virtue of s 3(1)(h) of the Legal Practitioners (General) Regulations 1983, have been entitled to apply for registration as a legal practitioner without having to write the local examinations, if he had made application before 31 December 1985, he neglected to make his application until July 1986. On 6 December 1985 s 3(1) of the Regulations was amended by the insertion of a new para (i) to follow para (h). This provided that a person who applied for registration before 31 July 1986 and "before the 31st December, 1985, had passed all the examinations necessary to obtain [an appropriate] G degree..., which degree... he [had] since obtained" was entitled to apply for registration without having to write the local examinations.

The respondent's application was granted, the judge a quo (REYNOLDS J) holding that the effect of the amendment was to extend the time within which the respondent was entitled to apply for registration. The judge also took the view that a narrow construction of the legislation would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who at worst had been guilty of a procedural irregularity. The Law Society appealed, arguing that the amendment did not extend the time within which a person in the respondent's position might apply for registration, but merely extended the concession provided by the preceding paragraph in the subsection to two specified groups of persons.

Held, that two enactments had to be read together. The later one must not be construed as repealing the earlier one unless it expressly altered the provisions of the earlier one, or such alteration was a necessary, and not merely a possible, inference of the later enactment. If both enactments can reasonably be construed in such a way that both can be given effect to, that must be done. The 1985 amendment did not expressly repeal the earlier provision; and the two paragraphs were not manifestly inconsistent but could, without straining the language, be construed in a way that would give effect to the provisions of both.

Held, further, that the sole consequence of the amendment was to add two further categories of citizens to those entitled to register, namely -

• (i) the citizen who before 31 December 1985 had passed the relevant examinations but had not before that date obtained the degree or certificate;
• (ii) the citizen who since 31 December 1985 had passed supplementary examinations enabling him to obtain the relevant degree or certificate before 31 July 1986.

The amendment did not cover those persons who had obtained their degrees before 31 December 1985 and the respondent accordingly was no longer entitled to apply for registration without having to write the local examinations.