Vested right of appeal survives later amendment where no clear retrospective intent is shown

A vested right of appeal arising when a suit is instituted cannot be taken away by a later amendment to the Letters Patent unless retrospective intent is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. The Court treated the appellate right as substantive, not merely procedural, and held that a change regulating forum or internal court working does not by itself divest pending litigants of existing rights. As the amended clause showed no clear intention to affect pending suits, it was not applied retrospectively, and the memorandum of appeal had to be accepted and registered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Letters Patent could be applied retrospectively so as to take away the right of appeal in pending second appeals arising from suits instituted before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a substantive right that accrued when the suit was instituted and was not a mere matter of procedure. A later amendment to the Letters Patent was not to be construed as affecting that vested right unless a contrary intention was clearly expressed or necessarily implied. The language and subject-matter of the amended clause did not show a clear intention to divest pending litigants of their existing appellate rights, and the statutory change could not be given retrospective effect merely because it regulated the forum or internal working of the Court.

Conclusion: The amended Letters Patent did not apply to pending suits so as to destroy the existing right of appeal; the applicants were entitled to have the memorandum of appeal accepted and registered.

Final Conclusion: The decision preserved the pre-existing appellate remedy in cases already instituted before the amendment and rejected the retrospective application of the new appellate clause.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested right of appeal arising from the institution of a suit cannot be taken away by a later procedural or jurisdictional amendment unless retrospective intent is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.

---