The appellant was detained on the 20th September, 1971, pursuant 15 to an order made on the 19th September, 1971, by the President under regulation 31A of the Preservation of Public Security Regulations. On the 8th October, 1971, the appellant's legal adviser made a written request to the respondent to appoint a chairman of a tribunal established under sub-regulation (7). In his reply the respondent expressed the view that 20 s. 26A had by necessary implication repealed sub-regulation (7) and that he therefore had neither power nor duty to make the requested appointment. The appellant had made an application in the High Court for an order of mandamus directing the respondent in his capacity as Chief Justice to appoint a chairman of a tribunal under regulation 31A of the 25 Preservation of Public Security Regulations. This application had been dismissed. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant (subject to a concession as to the partial repeal of sub-regulation (7)) that s. 26A and sub-regulations (7) and (8) can co - exist and that, therefore, no repeal of the sub-regulations may be implied. 30
(i) S. 26A (1) (c) is a general limitation on review earlier than one year after the commencement of the restriction or detention; the words "if he so requests . . ." impart a condition precedent only to the actual review, a procedural provision not affecting 35 the nature of the right, which is to have the case reviewed after the expiration of a year.
(ii) Hence, the provision means that a man's case shall be reviewed not earlier than one year after the commencement of his detention or restriction, or after his last request for a review, provided 40 he asks for a review.
1974 ZR p2
(iii) In construing a statute dictionary meanings and "ordinary" meanings may properly be used as working hypotheses or starting points, but in the final analysis these must always give way to the meaning which the context requires.
(iv) S. 5 26A (1) (c) is in conflict with sub-regulations (8) and (7) (ii) (a) of regulation 31A of the Preservation of Public Security Regulations, both of which provisions must therefore be held to have been impliedly repealed.