Municipal octroi rules displaced an earlier levy arrangement, with saving provisions preserving valid bye-laws and a corrigendum remaining non-substantive.

Later valid municipal octroi rules and bye-laws displaced an earlier octroi arrangement in the same field where the two were repugnant, so the absence of a separate exemption did not prevent their operation. A saving clause preserved the sanctioned rules and bye-laws after repeal of the earlier municipal statute, including the legal consequences of what had already been duly completed. A corrigendum correcting typographical and printing errors was treated as non-substantive and did not require fresh rule-making or invalidate the scheme. The challenge to the enhanced octroi levy therefore failed and the municipal levy was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the municipal octroi rules and bye-laws validly came into force notwithstanding the absence of a separate governmental exemption from the earlier octroi ordinance; (ii) whether the municipal octroi rules and bye-laws were saved after repeal of the earlier municipal statute; and (iii) whether the corrigendum issued to the rules and bye-laws amounted to an impermissible modification.

Issue (i): Whether the municipal octroi rules and bye-laws validly came into force notwithstanding the absence of a separate governmental exemption from the earlier octroi ordinance.

Analysis: The two enactments operated in the same field of octroi levy and collection. Once the municipal rules and bye-laws were validly framed and brought into force under the later municipal law, the earlier governmental octroi arrangement could not continue to operate concurrently where the two were repugnant. Rule 3 and Bye-law 3 were treated as proceeding on a mistaken assumption that an exemption was a condition precedent; such a provision could not prevent the legal operation of the later valid municipal scheme. The Court held that the later subordinate legislation displaced the earlier arrangement by necessary implication.

Conclusion: The municipal octroi rules and bye-laws validly came into force and this contention failed, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the municipal octroi rules and bye-laws were saved after repeal of the earlier municipal statute.

Analysis: The rules and bye-laws had been validly made and sanctioned before the repeal, and the sanction order could not be severed from the instruments it approved. The saving provision preserved orders, rules, bye-laws, and other matters in force immediately before commencement, and the expression concerning things duly done was broad enough to include the legal consequences of what had been validly completed before repeal. On that basis, the sanctioned municipal rules and bye-laws were treated as continuing under the later statute.

Conclusion: The rules and bye-laws were saved and remained effective, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the corrigendum issued to the rules and bye-laws amounted to an impermissible modification.

Analysis: The corrigendum was issued to correct typographical and printing errors in the drafted instruments. It did not amount to a substantive alteration requiring a fresh rule-making exercise. Even if any minor correction had operational significance, it did not invalidate the already validly brought-into-force municipal scheme.

Conclusion: The corrigendum did not invalidate the rules and bye-laws, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the enhanced octroi levy failed on all substantive grounds, and the municipal levy under the 1965 rules and bye-laws was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where later valid municipal subordinate legislation on the same subject is inconsistent with an earlier transitional levy arrangement, the earlier arrangement is displaced by necessary implication, and a saving clause preserves duly sanctioned rules and bye-laws together with their legal consequences; a corrigendum limited to typographical correction does not amount to a fresh substantive modification.

---