Gordon-Smith J:

This is a Special Case submitted by the Magistrate, 6th Police Court, Singapore in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, s. 317. The Magistrate convicted the accused Bus Co. on 10 November inflicting a fine of $25.

The charge read "That you on 9 September 1948 did use the above site (vacant land Lots 142 and 1431 at Prinsep Street) as a garage without the licence in writing of the Municipal Commissioners, an offence under s. 58(1)(w)(viii) Garage Bye-law 1, punishable under Garage Bye-law 13 of the Mun Ord.

This charge might have been better and more explicitly framed but the accused were represented by Counsel, no objection was raised to the charge and it was clearly understood that the accused were being charged with using the land as a place for parking vehicles, without the requisite Municipal licence.

Before the Magistrate Mr. Walters who appeared for the accused produced a ruling on this Bye-law by the CJ FMS in 1928 in respect of an alleged offence at Malacca, the relevant Bye-law in this respect being exactly the same as in Singapore and he argued the case for the accused on the basis of this ruling and submitted that the Magistrate was bound by it and should therefore acquit the accused.In fact however the law was amended in 1929, probably in consequence of this ruling and the law is now different to what it was when this decision was given.It remains to be seen therefore how such amendment has affected the position, in relation to the facts of the present case.

The power to make Bye-laws is contained in Pt VI s. 58 of the Municipal Ord: Ch: 135 (In the Murison Edition it is Ch: 133, s. 57).

Section 58(1)(w)(viii) reads: "garages and places kept or used for repairing, painting, storing, housing or parking motor vehicles, except garages or places used in connection with private dwelling houses for housing motor vehicles kept for private use only." The words "or parking" were inserted by s. 6 of an amending Ordinance No. 1 of 1929, and this is the amendment of the law I have referred to.

The relevant Bye-law (and it is the same for Malacca) is No. 1 enacted in 1923 and was under the enabling authority of s. 58(1)(w)(viii), (then s. 57), set out above.It reads: "From and after the date of confirmation and publication of these Bye-laws no land or buildings shall be used and no buildings shall be erected for any of the purposes defined in s. 57(1)(v)(viii) except under a licence granted by the Municipal Commissioners.

In the 1928 case before Gompertz CJ the land or place used for parking the vehicle was a piece of waste land within the Malacca Municipality and the learned CJ held after an inspection of the land, that it was "not a garage.Nor is it such a place as is intended by the section.Nor again is it used for storing or housing motor vehicles.

I do not question the correctness of the decision but, as I have said, in consequence of it, the law was amended and I do not think it now authoritative, in view of such amendment.

Mr Walters submitted before me, that as the relevant Bye-law itself had not also been amended therefore the amendment to the substantive law had no effect on the previously enacted Bye-laws.In effect, this submission means that it was necessary to repeal and re-enact the Bye-law in exactly the same terms as previously.

If you have subsidiary legislation dealing with a specific point for which the enabling law has not provided authority it may well be that such subsidiary legislation is, or may be held to be, ultra vires but if you amend such enabling law by including that authority, then such subsidiary legislation becomes intra vires from the date of such amendment and if the amending legislation specifically says so, it may even have retrospective effect.

In 1928 case the learned CJ ruled that the general term "place" was coloured and controlled by the special term "garage" which preceded it but you must also read the section as a whole and these words