Terrell A-G CJ:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Chief Justice discharging a rule nisi for a mandamus obtained by the relators Syed Abdulrahman bin Shaik Alkaff, and Syed Aboobaker bin Hussain Alkaff against the Municipal Commissioners of Singapore.

The facts of the case are sufficiently dealt with in the judgment of Howes J which I have had the advantage of reading and it is not necessary for me to recapitulate them.

I agree with the learned Chief Justice that By-law 121 is intra vires if it is applied to a new building or to any building operation which involves in substance the reconstruction of an existing building. I also agree that the works contemplated by the relators brought them within the definition of persons "deemed to erect a building" within the meaning of s. 144(10) of the Ordinance, and that accordingly they were under an obligation to submit specifications and plans (s 144(1). It is true that Mr. Walters argued that it was not really necessary for the relators to have submitted plans, but in fact they did so, and I doubt whether this argument was really open to the appellants.

The only real issue in this case is whether "erect a building" in By-law 121 should be given its ordinary meaning, that is of erecting a new building or making a substantial reconstruction of an existing building, or whether the expression should be given the extended meaning provided by s. 144(10).

Although later I will deal with the history of the legislation so far as concerns the provision of arcades, the primary duty of the Court is to interpret the Ordinance and the By-laws made thereunder as it finds them, and it will be necessary to refer shortly to the sections which are applicable.

A general and very wide power to make By-laws is conferred by s. 58, and s. 143, which particularises certain matters in respect of which building bylaws may be made, does not restrict the generality of the powers given by s. 58.

Section 144 provides for the submission of plans and specifications by any person intending to erect or re-erect a building. By s. 144(10)(h) a person shall be deemed to erect a building who carries but major repairs such as are contemplated by the relators. Section 144(1) further says that the plans and specifications shall be prepared "in accordance with this Ordinance and the Building By-laws."

Section 144(2) provides that the Commissioners may give directions with regard to certain matters including (sub-s. (a) "compliance with this Ordinance and the Building by-laws."

Building by-law 121 commences:

every person who shall erect a building which abuts on any street or road shall provide a verandah way or an uncovered footway etc.

Now the main argument of the appellant was that, if by-law 121 is given the extended meaning for which the respondents contend, it is unreasonable and ultra vires. It is claimed that the by-law is unreasonable on two grounds:

(a) it purports to deprive property owners of their land without compensation and

(b) If it applies it is obligatory, the Commissioners having no right of waiver.

In answer to (a) the respondents argue that a by-law is not necessarily unreasonable because it deprives people of their property without compensation, and they relied on Onions v. Clarke, 116 LT p. 335 and Slattery v. Naylor, [1913] AC p. 446.

In answer to (b) the respondents submitted that the Commissioners had a right of waiver, and that in considering whether or not a by-law is reasonable the Court will always assume that the by-law of a public representative body will be reasonably administered. Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 QB at p. 99.

I fully accept submission (a) with a proviso, that if persons are to be deprived of their property without compensation the statute or regulations must so provide in clear and unequivocal terms. "It is a proper rule of construction not to construe an act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring persons' rights without compensation unless on