Société des Chasseurs de L’Ile Maurice and others v The State of Mauritius and another

A statutory protection for accrued rights does not preserve rights under a repealed licensing scheme where the replacement statute expressly creates a new regime and makes transitional provision inconsistent with continuation of the old rights. A statute may be prospective in operation yet apply to all persons seeking licences after commencement, including existing licence holders. A firearms limit does not amount to compulsory acquisition of property where the owner retains ownership and lawful alternatives, including sale, gift or destruction, and an optional safekeeping service is not compulsory. Surrender on expiry of an unrenewed licence is a lawful incident of firearms licensing and does not transfer ownership.

Licensed hunters challenged section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 2006, which limited every individual to two firearms. They argued that licences issued under the repealed Firearms Act 1940 carried an accrued right to renewal protected by section 17(3)(c) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1974. They also argued that the new limit and associated police safekeeping arrangements compulsorily took possession of, or acquired rights over, property contrary to section 8(1) of the Constitution.

The first-instance judge upheld the challenge. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The central questions were whether the old renewal rights survived the new statutory scheme and whether the scheme involved unconstitutional compulsory taking or acquisition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Board held that section 17(3)(c) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1974 applies only where there is an acquired or accrued right under the repealed enactment. Its general protection is subject to clear statutory language showing that the replacement legislation removes or modifies the old right.
2. The Firearms Act 2006 expressly replaced the licensing scheme under the Firearms Act 1940. Sections 50 and 51 were decisive: existing licences remained valid only until expiry, and the future position was governed by the new Act. Any assumed right to renewal under the 1940 Act was incompatible with that scheme and could not be preserved by section 17(3)(c).
3. The Act was prospective, but that did not exclude existing licence holders from the new scheme. Section 51(1) confirmed limited transitional protection, while licences sought after commencement were governed by the 2006 Act.
4. The constitutional challenge failed. Ownership and possession are distinct. Section 22 offered an optional safekeeping service; it did not compel an owner to surrender excess firearms. Owners retained lawful alternatives, including sale, gift or destruction, and retained ownership even if a firearm was placed in safekeeping. There was therefore no compulsory taking of possession or compulsory acquisition of a right over property.
5. For completeness, section 12(4), requiring surrender where a licence expired and was not renewed, was treated as an ordinary and justified incident of a firearms licensing system. It did not transfer ownership, and lawful disposal remained available to the owner.
6. The parties were directed to lodge written submissions on costs within 21 days, with any responses within a further 14 days.

• Supreme Court of Mauritius: The first-instance judge upheld the challenge to section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 2006.
• Court of Appeal of Mauritius: The first-instance decision was reversed, and the constitutional complaint was dismissed.
• Privy Council: The appeals were dismissed for reasons similar, but not identical, to those of the Court of Appeal.