IOS2601
ASSIGNMENT 1
SEMESTER 2 2023
PublIc, cONSTITuTIONAl ANd INTERNATIONAl lAw
QUESTION 1
(a) Facts of the Jaga case:
In the case of Jaga v Dönges (1950) 4 SA 653 (A), the plaintiff, a woman named Jaga, brought an
action against the defendant, Dönges, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The
accident occurred when the defendant's car collided with a bicycle that the plaintiff was riding. As a
result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses.
During the trial, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was partly responsible for the accident due
to her own negligence. The trial court found the plaintiff to be 75% responsible for the accident and
the defendant 25% responsible. Consequently, the court reduced the damages awarded to the
plaintiff proportionately.
The case was taken to the Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of Appeal) on appeal, where
the main issue was the proper interpretation and application of the Apportionment of Damages Act,
a statute that governed the apportionment of liability in cases of contributory negligence.
(b) The dominant interpretive approach before 1994 as followed by the majority in Jaga:
Before 1994, the dominant interpretive approach followed in South African courts was a strict literal
or textual approach to statutory interpretation. This approach involved looking only at the plain
meaning of the words used in the statute, without considering the underlying purpose or policy
objectives of the legislation. Judges were expected to apply the law as it was written, even if the
consequences appeared unjust or unreasonable.
ASSIGNMENT 1
SEMESTER 2 2023
PublIc, cONSTITuTIONAl ANd INTERNATIONAl lAw
QUESTION 1
(a) Facts of the Jaga case:
In the case of Jaga v Dönges (1950) 4 SA 653 (A), the plaintiff, a woman named Jaga, brought an
action against the defendant, Dönges, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The
accident occurred when the defendant's car collided with a bicycle that the plaintiff was riding. As a
result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses.
During the trial, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was partly responsible for the accident due
to her own negligence. The trial court found the plaintiff to be 75% responsible for the accident and
the defendant 25% responsible. Consequently, the court reduced the damages awarded to the
plaintiff proportionately.
The case was taken to the Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of Appeal) on appeal, where
the main issue was the proper interpretation and application of the Apportionment of Damages Act,
a statute that governed the apportionment of liability in cases of contributory negligence.
(b) The dominant interpretive approach before 1994 as followed by the majority in Jaga:
Before 1994, the dominant interpretive approach followed in South African courts was a strict literal
or textual approach to statutory interpretation. This approach involved looking only at the plain
meaning of the words used in the statute, without considering the underlying purpose or policy
objectives of the legislation. Judges were expected to apply the law as it was written, even if the
consequences appeared unjust or unreasonable.
