IOS2601
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Interpretation of Statutes
(a) Facts of the Jaga case (6 marks)
The case of Jaga v Dönges, N.O. and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 (A) concerned
the interpretation of the Aliens Act of 1937.
Jaga, an Indian citizen, was convicted of an offence under the Act and ordered to
be deported.
The dispute centred on the correct interpretation of section 3(1) of the Act:
whether the words required that both the conviction and sentence must be within
the Union of South Africa, or only the conviction.
The issue was whether the statute should be read literally or whether a broader,
purposive meaning should be given.
The majority and minority judgments took different interpretive approaches in
resolving this issue.
(b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994 (majority in Jaga) (14 marks)
Before 1994, South African courts generally adopted a literal or textual
approach to statutory interpretation.
The guiding principle was that the words of the statute should be given their
plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning, unless doing so produced absurd
results.
In Jaga, the majority (per Schreiner JA) held that the starting point was always
the language of the provision itself.
Courts could consider the context or purpose only secondarily and only when the
wording was ambiguous or uncertain.
This was often called the “literal rule” or “strict construction” approach.
The focus was on the legislature’s intent as expressed in the text, not on broader
social or moral considerations.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Interpretation of Statutes
(a) Facts of the Jaga case (6 marks)
The case of Jaga v Dönges, N.O. and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 (A) concerned
the interpretation of the Aliens Act of 1937.
Jaga, an Indian citizen, was convicted of an offence under the Act and ordered to
be deported.
The dispute centred on the correct interpretation of section 3(1) of the Act:
whether the words required that both the conviction and sentence must be within
the Union of South Africa, or only the conviction.
The issue was whether the statute should be read literally or whether a broader,
purposive meaning should be given.
The majority and minority judgments took different interpretive approaches in
resolving this issue.
(b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994 (majority in Jaga) (14 marks)
Before 1994, South African courts generally adopted a literal or textual
approach to statutory interpretation.
The guiding principle was that the words of the statute should be given their
plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning, unless doing so produced absurd
results.
In Jaga, the majority (per Schreiner JA) held that the starting point was always
the language of the provision itself.
Courts could consider the context or purpose only secondarily and only when the
wording was ambiguous or uncertain.
This was often called the “literal rule” or “strict construction” approach.
The focus was on the legislature’s intent as expressed in the text, not on broader
social or moral considerations.
