A statute should not be interpreted as having retrospective effect unless there is an express provision to that effect or that the result is unavoidable from the language used.
The plaintiff was born when the age of majority for the purposes of extinctive prescription was 21 years. The age of majority was changed to 18 years in 2007 when the Children’s Act, 2005 came into operation. It was held that the Children’s Act did not have retrospective effect and the plaintiff still had rights to issue summons up to one year after he turned 21 and not 18 years.
