Rex v Zock

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeSolomon CJ, De Villiers JA, Curlewis JA and Stratford JA
Judgment Date12 June 1928
Citation1928 AD 384
Hearing Date01 June 1928
CourtAppellate Division

De Villiers, J.A.:

Sec. 5 (1) of Act 21 of 1923 provides that: "Whenever the Governor-General deems it expedient he may, by Proclamation in the Gazette, declare that, from and after a date to be specified therein, all natives within the limits of any urban area or any specified portion thereof other than those exempted under sub sec. (2) of this section, shall reside in a location, native village or native hostel." Under this section, on

De Villiers, J.A.

the 16th September, 1927, the following Proclamation by the Governor-General was published in the Gazette:

"NOTICE.

"The attention of the residents of Ferreiras is drawn to the following extract from the Government Gazette of 16th September, 1927.

No. 2.53, 1927.

Proclamation of portion of urban area of Johannesburg under section 5 of Act 21/1923.

"Under and by virtue of the powers vested in me by section 5 of the Natives. (Urban Areas) Act, 1923 (Act No. 21 of 1923), 1 do hereby proclaim, declare and make known that from and after the 1st day of January, 1928, all natives within the limits of the portion of the urban area of Johannesburg specified in the accompanying Schedule, other than those excepted under sub-section (2) of the said section, shall reside in a location, native village or native hostel."

The Schedule reads as follows: -

"SCHEDULE.

"That portion of the township of Ferreiras bounded on the south and west by portion of farm Turffontein No. 21, on the north by Marshall Street and on the east by Melville Street."

The question in this appeal is whether this Proclamation is ultra vires or not.

Sec. 1 (1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that "Subject to the approval of the Minister after reference to the administrator, any urban local authority may (a) set apart one or more areas of land for the occupation of natives (called a location); (b) set apart, either within or outside of a location, an area or areas (called a native village) where natives are entitled to acquire the lease of lots for the erection of houses or huts for their own occupation; (c) provide one or more buildings or groups of buildings or huts (called native hostels) either within or without the limits of a location or native village, for the accommodation of natives not living under conditions of family life, on such terms and conditions as, with the approval of the administrator and the Minister, the urban local authority may by regulation prescribe; (d) provide buildings or huts within any location or native...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Hleka v Johannesburg City Council
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...has been given to the word in Rex v Lammas (1929, E.D.L. 264 at p. 267); Rex v Hodos and Jaghbay (1927 TPD 101 at p. 105); Rex v Zock (1928 AD 384); Rex v Abelman (1929 TPD 595 at p. 599); Rex v Mabi and Others (1935 TPD 408 at p. 411); Rex v Nkonyane (1934, 1949 (1) SA p844 T.P.D. 363 at p......
  • Molife v Superintendent of Locations and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...to set aside portion of the native location for the exclusive use of coloured persons. See Feinstein v Baleta (1930 AD 319); R v Zoch (1928 AD 384); Kruse v Johnson (1898, 2 Q.B. 91) and Potchefstroom Municipality v van der Lingen, (1929 T.P.D. 496). Appropriation of such portion to coloure......
  • Rex v Nkonyane
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...accommodation had been provided in the Location. Rex v Nkonyane (1934 T.P.D. 363); Rex v Hodos & Jaghbay (1927 TPD at p. 103); Rex v Zock (1928 AD 384); Rex v Abelman (1929 T.P.D. 595); Rex v Kostas (1932 AD 138); Rex v Lowry (1934, E.D.L. 70); Rex v Lammas (1929, F,.D.L. 264); Rex v Nyande......
  • Rex v Kostas
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...by the Proclamation. See R v Hodos and Jaghbay (1927 TPD 101); R v Lammas (1929, E.D.L. 264); R v Abelman (1929 TPD 595) and R v Zack (1928 AD 384). Alternatively on the proper construction of the sub-section the appellant committed no offence without proof that the natives whom he had perm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Hleka v Johannesburg City Council
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...has been given to the word in Rex v Lammas (1929, E.D.L. 264 at p. 267); Rex v Hodos and Jaghbay (1927 TPD 101 at p. 105); Rex v Zock (1928 AD 384); Rex v Abelman (1929 TPD 595 at p. 599); Rex v Mabi and Others (1935 TPD 408 at p. 411); Rex v Nkonyane (1934, 1949 (1) SA p844 T.P.D. 363 at p......
  • Molife v Superintendent of Locations and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...to set aside portion of the native location for the exclusive use of coloured persons. See Feinstein v Baleta (1930 AD 319); R v Zoch (1928 AD 384); Kruse v Johnson (1898, 2 Q.B. 91) and Potchefstroom Municipality v van der Lingen, (1929 T.P.D. 496). Appropriation of such portion to coloure......
  • Rex v Nkonyane
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...accommodation had been provided in the Location. Rex v Nkonyane (1934 T.P.D. 363); Rex v Hodos & Jaghbay (1927 TPD at p. 103); Rex v Zock (1928 AD 384); Rex v Abelman (1929 T.P.D. 595); Rex v Kostas (1932 AD 138); Rex v Lowry (1934, E.D.L. 70); Rex v Lammas (1929, F,.D.L. 264); Rex v Nyande......
  • Rex v Kostas
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...by the Proclamation. See R v Hodos and Jaghbay (1927 TPD 101); R v Lammas (1929, E.D.L. 264); R v Abelman (1929 TPD 595) and R v Zack (1928 AD 384). Alternatively on the proper construction of the sub-section the appellant committed no offence without proof that the natives whom he had perm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT