Terrell A-J CJ:

The facts of this case are as follows.The respondent Brouwer was in arrear with the assessment payable in respect of a piece of land in Kuala Lumpur of which he was the registered owner.The Chairman of the Sanitary Board thereupon obtained an order attaching the land.The order is 31 March 1936, and is expressed to be in force for six months from the date of the order.

A prohibitory order was applied for in accordance with s. 108 (i) of the Land Code, which provides that, no attachment by order of Court shall affect any land until a copy of the prohibitory order under s. 294 of the Civil Procedure Code has been presented.The order was duly presented and a memorial thereof made, but the Registrar of Titles is in doubt whether he should register such order, and accordingly refers the matter to the Supreme Court under the provisions of s. 239 of the Land Code.

The difficulty which has arisen is that s. 294 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was introduced by Enactment 25 of 1933 and purported to amend s. 275 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1918, was only to come into force upon the publication of a notification to that effect in the Government Gazette.This was in consequence of s. 1 (ii) of the 1933 Enactment but although the other provisions of the 1933 Enactment were brought into force by a Gazette notification of 1 April 1934, the amendments to certain sections, including s. 275 were expressly omitted, and it is common ground that such sections have never been brought into force in the manner contemplated by s. 1(ii), that is to say by a notification by the Chief Secretary in the Government Gazette.

It is to be noted, however, that s. 108 (i) of the Land Code expressly refers to s. 294 of the Civil Procedure Code and not to take the old s. 275, and on turning to the Civil Procedure Code it is found that the new sections which were never brought into force have been included, and that the old sections, which were to be automatically repealed on the new sections being brought into force (see e.g. s. 19 of Enactment 25 of 1933) have been omitted.

It is now necessary to consider the provisions of the Revised Edition of the Laws Enactment, 1932.This Enactment provided for a Commissioner

to prepare a new and revised edition of the Enactments of the Federated Malay States and each of them.

The Commissioner had the usual powers to omit enactments or parts of enactments which had been repealed etc., to consolidate into one any two or mere enactments in pari materia, to transfer any section from one enactment to any other enactment to which it may have properly belonged, and other similar powers.These powers which are given by s. 4 are all powers to make amendments in form and not in substance, and in order that there might be no doubt on the subject, s. 6 (i) provides as follows:

The powers conferred on the Commissioner by s. 4 shall not be taken to imply any power in him to make any alteration or amendment in the matter or substance of any enactment or part of an enactment.

The remaining sub-section of s. 6 provide the machinery by which alteration in substance may be effected, namely by the introduction of a Bill.

By s. 5 the Commissioner was empowered to omit certain enactments as specified in the schedule.Such enactments were declared to remain in force until they had been expressly repealed.Section 275 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1918, and the other sections of Enactment 25 of 1933 which have not been brought into force, were not included in such sch.

Then we come to s. 9, which reads as follows:

(i) Upon the passing of a resolution of the Federal Council authorising him to do the same the High Commissioner may, by proclamation, order that the Revised Edition come into force from such date as he may think fit.

(ii) From the date named in the proclamation the Revised Edition shall be in all Courts of Justice and for all purposes whatsoever the sole authentic edition of the Enactments of the Federated Malay Stat