R v Grove

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeCentlivres CJ, Hoexter JA, De Beer JA, Reynolds JA and Hall JA
Judgment Date16 March 1956
Citation1956 (2) SA 254 (A)
Hearing Date02 March 1956
CourtAppellate Division

Hoexter, J.A.:

In Suidwes-Afrika het die Administrateur die mag om geslote streke vir vee vas te stel. In 1935 het hy, luidens C Goerwermentskennisgewing 37 van 1935, daardie mag as volg uitgeoefen: -

'Vasstelling van geslote streke vir vee.

Dit het die Administrateur behaag om kragtens die magte hom verleen by art. 2 van die Veesiektewet Wysigingsordannansie 1928 (Ord. 5 van 1928) te verklaar dat die streek beskrywe in die Bylae van hierdie kennisgewing 'n streek is, waarin of waaruit dit nie wettig sal wees nie om vee te laat inkom of te verwyder, behalwe op gesag van 'n permit uitgereik deur die hoofveearts.

Goewermentskennisgewing 178 van 1930 word hierby herroep.

D Bylae.

Die streek bevattende (1) daardie gedeelte van die Distrik Omaruru geleë westelik van die Polisiesone-grens, soos beskrywe in die Eerste Bylae van Prok. 26 van 1928, en (2) daardie gedeelte van die Distrik Outjo geleë westelik en noordelik van die Polisiesone-grens, soos beskrywe in die Eerste Bylae van Prok. 26 van 1928.'

E Die Polisiesone waarna verwys word het alreeds bestaan gedurende die Duitse bewind. Dit blyk uit die bewoording van art. 2 (1) van Prok. 15 van 1919. Die aanhef van daardie Proklamasie lees as volg:

'Whereas it is desirable to make provision for the regulation of movement and residence of persons in certain portions of the Protectorate';

en art. 2 lees as volg: -

'2. No person, other than an official of F the Administration shall, save under permit issued by or under authority of the Secretary of the Protectorate, reside or be -

(1) in the area beyond the line defining the 'Polizei-Zone' marked on the map of the Protectorate of South West Africa of the 1st October, 1911, running eastwards . . .'

(hier volg dan die beskrywing van die bedoelde grens).

G Prok. 15 van 1919 is herroep deur Prok. 26 van 1928, en art. 3 van laasgenoemde Proklamasie omskrywe as volg die streek waarin geen persoon...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
4 practice notes
  • Berman Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Sodastream Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...only in "the other law" which makes reference to the repealed provision (as was done in R v Ngcobo (supra at 425) and in R v Grove 1956 (2) SA 254 (A) at 258H-259) or only in the law which repeals and re-enacts (as was done in R v Fynn 1941 NPD 95 at 97 and in S v G Msitshana (supra at 389C......
  • Janse Van Rensburg v Mahu Exhaust CC and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Others 2007 (6) SA 523 (C): referred to R v Forlee 1917 TPD 51: referred to R v Grove 1956 (1) SA 507 (SWA): referred to R v Grove 1956 (2) SA 254 (A): referred to Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Tshiva; Maxanti v Protea Assurance Co Ltd I 1979 (3) SA 73 (A): referred to Seaworld Frozen Foods......
  • D v Minister of the Interior
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1910, which was based on sec. 38 (1) of the English Interpretation Act of 1899, see R. v. Ngcobo, 1941 A.D. 412 at p. 425; R. v. Grove, 1956 (2) S.A. 254; R. v. B., 1959 (3) S.A. 87, and Stevens v. General Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., 1903 (1) K.B. 890. Cur. adv. vult. Postea (September 23rd)......
  • R v Lan
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...in the car and there is nothing to show that the appellant did not genuinely believe that she was not then attending a gathering. 1956 (2) SA p254 Centlivres In all these circumstances I fail to see how any good purpose can be served by sending the appellant to gaol. Consequently the whole ......
4 cases
  • Berman Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Sodastream Ltd and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...only in "the other law" which makes reference to the repealed provision (as was done in R v Ngcobo (supra at 425) and in R v Grove 1956 (2) SA 254 (A) at 258H-259) or only in the law which repeals and re-enacts (as was done in R v Fynn 1941 NPD 95 at 97 and in S v G Msitshana (supra at 389C......
  • Janse Van Rensburg v Mahu Exhaust CC and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...and Others 2007 (6) SA 523 (C): referred to R v Forlee 1917 TPD 51: referred to R v Grove 1956 (1) SA 507 (SWA): referred to R v Grove 1956 (2) SA 254 (A): referred to Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Tshiva; Maxanti v Protea Assurance Co Ltd I 1979 (3) SA 73 (A): referred to Seaworld Frozen Foods......
  • D v Minister of the Interior
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1910, which was based on sec. 38 (1) of the English Interpretation Act of 1899, see R. v. Ngcobo, 1941 A.D. 412 at p. 425; R. v. Grove, 1956 (2) S.A. 254; R. v. B., 1959 (3) S.A. 87, and Stevens v. General Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., 1903 (1) K.B. 890. Cur. adv. vult. Postea (September 23rd)......
  • R v Lan
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...in the car and there is nothing to show that the appellant did not genuinely believe that she was not then attending a gathering. 1956 (2) SA p254 Centlivres In all these circumstances I fail to see how any good purpose can be served by sending the appellant to gaol. Consequently the whole ......