Société des Chasseurs de L'Ile Maurice and others (Appellants) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Société des Chasseurs de L'Ile Maurice and others (Appellants) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

The 2006 Act expressly repealed and replaced the 1940 Act, creating a new licensing regime with a two-gun limit. Any accrued right to possess more than two firearms under the 1940 Act did not survive the explicit provisions of the 2006 Act. The Act did not amount to compulsory acquisition or deprivation of property, as it did not require surrender of ownership and allowed alternative lawful means of disposal. The constitutional challenge failed.

Citation
[2016] UKPC 13
Parties
Appellants: Société des Chasseurs de L’Ile Maurice and others; Respondents: The State of Mauritius and another
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Privy Council on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Mauritius
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Firearms Regulation, Accrued Rights, Retrospective Legislation, Property Rights, Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions
Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Firearms Regulation Accrued Rights Retrospective Legislation Property Rights Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Société des Chasseurs de L’Ile Maurice and others

Appellants

The State of Mauritius and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Privy Council on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Mauritius

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 2006 abrogated accrued rights under the Firearms Act 1940
  2. 2 Whether the two-gun limit and related provisions amount to compulsory acquisition or deprivation of property contrary to section 8(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius

Ratio Decidendi

The 2006 Act expressly repealed and replaced the 1940 Act, creating a new licensing regime with a two-gun limit. Any accrued right to possess more than two firearms under the 1940 Act did not survive the explicit provisions of the 2006 Act. The Act did not amount to compulsory acquisition or deprivation of property, as it did not require surrender of ownership and allowed alternative lawful means of disposal. The constitutional challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Parties to make written submissions on costs within 21 days, with responses within 14 days thereafter