MODULE : IOS2601
,IOS2601 Exam
Pack
Contains:
Exam Papers with Solutions
(2012-2014)
, 1
Contents
JUNE 2014 .............................................................................................................................................. 2
NOV 2013 ................................................................................................................................................ 9
JUNE 2013 ............................................................................................................................................ 16
NOV 2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 25
JUNE 2012 ............................................................................................................................................ 31
LUCIANO SCHOOL OF LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCES [LSLSS]
, 2
JUNE 2014
1. 3
2. 2
3. 4
4. 4
5. 2
6. 3
7. 2
8. 2
9. 2
10. 3
QUESTION 2
1 Introduction
In its Bato Star judgment, the Constitutional Court made reference to the interpretive approach
followed in Jaga v Dönges, a notorious case from the 1950s. In this essay, I argue that the recent
comments by the Constitutional Court about the case clearly show that the Jaga judgment (is still
/ is no longer) relevant to the interpretation of statutes after the democratic transformation [choose
and defend one option].
1.2.2 The facts of the Jaga case (6 marks)
“During the early 1950s, Jaga was caught selling unwrought gold. He was sentenced to “three
months imprisonment suspended for three years”. Section 22 of Act 22 of 1913 read as follows:
“Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any offence committed by the sale of
unwrought precious metal and who is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of
the Union, may be removed from the Union under a warrant”. The Minister declared Jaga an
undesirable inhabitant of the Union and a warrant for his deportation to India was issued. Jaga
challenged his deportation on the basis that he had not been sentenced to imprisonment. The
Minister argued that a suspended sentence of imprisonment is still a sentence of “imprisonment”
within the ordinary meaning of section 22. Jaga argued that “imprisonment” meant actual (as
opposed to me rely potential) imprisonment. “Sentenced to imprisonment” thus meant to be
physically held in prison, which he was not (his sentence was merely suspended and he was
allowed to go home)”
2 Section 39(2) of the Constitution and its influence on statutory interpretation in South
Africa
Section 39(2) of the Constitution provides:
“When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every
court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights”
S 39(2) is an authoritative provision, which in effect means that all courts, tribunals or forums must
review the aim and purpose of legislation in light of the Bill of Rights: unambiguous text and plain
meanings are longer considered as being sufficient. S 39(2) of the Constitution forces the
LUCIANO SCHOOL OF LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCES [LSLSS]
,IOS2601 Exam
Pack
Contains:
Exam Papers with Solutions
(2012-2014)
, 1
Contents
JUNE 2014 .............................................................................................................................................. 2
NOV 2013 ................................................................................................................................................ 9
JUNE 2013 ............................................................................................................................................ 16
NOV 2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 25
JUNE 2012 ............................................................................................................................................ 31
LUCIANO SCHOOL OF LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCES [LSLSS]
, 2
JUNE 2014
1. 3
2. 2
3. 4
4. 4
5. 2
6. 3
7. 2
8. 2
9. 2
10. 3
QUESTION 2
1 Introduction
In its Bato Star judgment, the Constitutional Court made reference to the interpretive approach
followed in Jaga v Dönges, a notorious case from the 1950s. In this essay, I argue that the recent
comments by the Constitutional Court about the case clearly show that the Jaga judgment (is still
/ is no longer) relevant to the interpretation of statutes after the democratic transformation [choose
and defend one option].
1.2.2 The facts of the Jaga case (6 marks)
“During the early 1950s, Jaga was caught selling unwrought gold. He was sentenced to “three
months imprisonment suspended for three years”. Section 22 of Act 22 of 1913 read as follows:
“Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any offence committed by the sale of
unwrought precious metal and who is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable inhabitant of
the Union, may be removed from the Union under a warrant”. The Minister declared Jaga an
undesirable inhabitant of the Union and a warrant for his deportation to India was issued. Jaga
challenged his deportation on the basis that he had not been sentenced to imprisonment. The
Minister argued that a suspended sentence of imprisonment is still a sentence of “imprisonment”
within the ordinary meaning of section 22. Jaga argued that “imprisonment” meant actual (as
opposed to me rely potential) imprisonment. “Sentenced to imprisonment” thus meant to be
physically held in prison, which he was not (his sentence was merely suspended and he was
allowed to go home)”
2 Section 39(2) of the Constitution and its influence on statutory interpretation in South
Africa
Section 39(2) of the Constitution provides:
“When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every
court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights”
S 39(2) is an authoritative provision, which in effect means that all courts, tribunals or forums must
review the aim and purpose of legislation in light of the Bill of Rights: unambiguous text and plain
meanings are longer considered as being sufficient. S 39(2) of the Constitution forces the
LUCIANO SCHOOL OF LAW & SOCIAL SCIENCES [LSLSS]
