[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]
IOS2601 Assignment
1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
, Exam (elaborations)
IOS2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
Course
Interpretation of Statutes (IOS2601)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Statutory Interpretation
IOS2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.. Ensure your success with us....
The Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), which was delivered at the
height of apartheid, remains important for the interpretation of
statutes after the democratic transformation. Kindly read the case and
answer the following questions. (a) BRIEFLY PROVIDE facts of the Jaga
case. (6)
Facts of the Case
The case of Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A) centered on an appeal by Mr. Jaga, an Indian
man who was born in South Africa and was a South African citizen. He was convicted of a
statutory offense of possessing unwrought gold, for which he was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment. In addition to the imprisonment, the Minister of Interior, Dr. T. E. Dönges, issued
an order for his deportation under section 22(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 22 of 1913.
Mr. Jaga contended that he was not an immigrant and therefore not subject to the provisions of
the Act which dealt with deportation. His argument was that the Act was intended to apply only
to people who entered the country from outside and not to those who were born there, like
himself. Furthermore, he argued that the deportation order was an administrative act and not a
criminal penalty, and as such, it should have been treated differently.
The Minister, however, argued that the phrase "convicted... and sentenced to imprisonment" in
the Act should be interpreted literally and that the conviction and sentence, regardless of the
individual's citizenship status, made him liable for deportation.
The Supreme Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Minister had the legal authority to
deport Mr. Jaga based on the provisions of the Immigration Act. The case, therefore, was a
IOS2601 Assignment
1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester
2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
NO PLAGIARISM
[Pick the date]
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
, Exam (elaborations)
IOS2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
Course
Interpretation of Statutes (IOS2601)
Institution
University Of South Africa (Unisa)
Book
Statutory Interpretation
IOS2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.. Ensure your success with us....
The Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), which was delivered at the
height of apartheid, remains important for the interpretation of
statutes after the democratic transformation. Kindly read the case and
answer the following questions. (a) BRIEFLY PROVIDE facts of the Jaga
case. (6)
Facts of the Case
The case of Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A) centered on an appeal by Mr. Jaga, an Indian
man who was born in South Africa and was a South African citizen. He was convicted of a
statutory offense of possessing unwrought gold, for which he was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment. In addition to the imprisonment, the Minister of Interior, Dr. T. E. Dönges, issued
an order for his deportation under section 22(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 22 of 1913.
Mr. Jaga contended that he was not an immigrant and therefore not subject to the provisions of
the Act which dealt with deportation. His argument was that the Act was intended to apply only
to people who entered the country from outside and not to those who were born there, like
himself. Furthermore, he argued that the deportation order was an administrative act and not a
criminal penalty, and as such, it should have been treated differently.
The Minister, however, argued that the phrase "convicted... and sentenced to imprisonment" in
the Act should be interpreted literally and that the conviction and sentence, regardless of the
individual's citizenship status, made him liable for deportation.
The Supreme Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Minister had the legal authority to
deport Mr. Jaga based on the provisions of the Immigration Act. The case, therefore, was a
