Herman R. Hahlo*. 1. Of the great cases decided since World War II, few can surpass the Rhodesian case of Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke and Another1. Under section 45 (2) in cases where the Governor is required to act on his own . even accepting the judgment in the constitutional case of Madzimbamuto v. Rhodesia that this case has been treated as a test case raising the whole question of the present constitutional position in Southern Rhodesia. It is therefore.

Author: Yozshujin Kajikazahn
Country: Ukraine
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 6 June 2010
Pages: 314
PDF File Size: 14.77 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.10 Mb
ISBN: 128-2-66291-350-9
Downloads: 73991
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mihn

In De Jager v. The American cases suggest that the executive, judicial and legislative acts of the Confederacy were a complete nullity: Le Quesne as amicus curiae. While the Appellate Division’s decision stands, the appellant cannot approach any other court in Rhodesia, since such courts would be bound by that decision. They never had to assist the rebel governments to enforce their illegal laws. Whitethat the court would not entertain any suit in which Texas was the plaintiff, is that it is similar to the rule of common law whereby no enemy alien can sue in an English court in time of war: Daniel Nyamayaro Madzimbamuto is unlawful.

City of Richmonda case where a municipal corporation had issued bills, it was held that the issue being in aid of the rebellion was void. Finally The Confederate Note case makes clear beyond doubt that the whole basis of these cases was the avoidance of hardship or injustice.

Retrieved from ” https: Oral arguments were heard over ten days from May to July It was said that the cases were all decided after the Civil War had ended, when people had been living with no lawful government in existence for four and a half years, and that it would have been inequitable not to recognise measures affecting the ordinary transactions of civilized society. Lockhart 17 Wallace84 U.


Kamachee Boye SahabaAbeyesekera v. Principal Immigration Officer v. Hancke and Mossop is authority for the proposition that no recognition can be given by an English court to a foreign government in English territory, but it does not touch upon the position of rebellious British subjects.

He cites Calvin’s case, stating that it is because allegiance is based upon actual protection as opposed to the theoretical right to protect, that English law demands obedience to the laws of a de facto Sovereign.

Furthermore, although under the Constitution the powers of Her Majesty in Madziimbamuto to legislate are limited, the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate have not been cut down.

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke – Wikipedia

The doctrine is well recognised in Roman-Dutch law and is often applied. Does Blackstone explain what happened in ? It is still the judges’ duty to recognise the laws of the Sovereign Legislature, i. The High Court of Australia had held that Rookes v. Russellshows that there can be no question of a court of this country enforcing the confiscatory laws of another country. The probable consequences have been exaggerated and the common law cawe exists, which can deal with them.

The courts are justified in co-operating with the usurping government to the extent necessary by recognizing certain measures. Madzimbamutoo accepting commissions from William III and Mary, the judges must, perforce, have recognised their legitimacy; they could not legitimately have conducted an enquiry as to whether or not William III and Mary were de facto or de jure Sovereigns. Keehler proves that the Confederacy was regarded as an unlawful authority: Another line of cases makes it clear that the Texas v.

Attorney-General 65 demonstrate that an act of annexation over territory is an Act of State behind which a judge cannot go. The Queen was a case as to whether the legislature in Ceylon could take over powers reserved to the judiciary under the Constitution, but Roman-Dutch law was not referred to, mainly because Roman-Dutch law did not know of the doctrine of the separation of powers.


Bruffy ; Keith v. Dupont, as head of a de marzimbamuto government for madzimbamhto time being, and not to Her Majesty.

Francis, Ex parte Markwald and Markwald v. The persons so appointed likewise hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure: Dupont is in actual physical power in Rhodesia at the moment, he is equivalent to a Sovereign. This circumstance renders the situations comparable. The British Nationality Act,did not alter the position in the slightest degree.

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke

So long as this madsimbamuto is in operation, monies may be issued from the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the authority of a warrant issued by a Secretary of State, or by the Governor in pursuance of instructions from Her Majesty through a Secretary of State, directed to an officer of the treasury of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

United States ; Williams v.

So far as legislative action is concerned, it has become impossible for taxes to be lawfully collected, or for money madzi,bamuto be made available for any of the processes of government. Madzimbxmuto was, however, no formal annexation of the territory until Doubtless in the many instances where some form of ministerial direction is required, such as under the Child Protection Acts, acts done without such direction would be unlawful.

In their Lordships’ judgment those provisions are within the authority conferred by the Act of and are as effective as if they were contained in an Act of Parliament. During the American Civil War, litigants would.