INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
(IOS2601) ASSIGNMENT 1
SOLUTIONS SEMESTER 2 2023
MEL718599
DUE 18 AUGUST 2023
0|Page
, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A)
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].
a) Facts of the Jaga case.
“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)”
b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994
The interpretive approach followed by the majority in Jaga was the orthodox text-based
(literal) approach. The primary rule of the orthodox (literal) text- b a s e d approach is that if
the plain or ordinary meaning of words in the legal text is unambiguous, then this clear
meaning is the intention of the legislator. An ordinary citizen may rely on the everyday
meaning of legislation; therefor the courts may not proceed beyond the plain meaning of
the text. A dictionary must firstly be used to settle interpretive questions.
1|Page
(IOS2601) ASSIGNMENT 1
SOLUTIONS SEMESTER 2 2023
MEL718599
DUE 18 AUGUST 2023
0|Page
, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A)
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].
a) Facts of the Jaga case.
“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)”
b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994
The interpretive approach followed by the majority in Jaga was the orthodox text-based
(literal) approach. The primary rule of the orthodox (literal) text- b a s e d approach is that if
the plain or ordinary meaning of words in the legal text is unambiguous, then this clear
meaning is the intention of the legislator. An ordinary citizen may rely on the everyday
meaning of legislation; therefor the courts may not proceed beyond the plain meaning of
the text. A dictionary must firstly be used to settle interpretive questions.
1|Page
