IOS2601 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A)
This is a request to analyze a legal case, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), and its relevance to
statutory interpretation in post-apartheid South Africa. The provided questions require a
breakdown of the case's facts, the dominant and alternative interpretive approaches presented,
and how these approaches have been affected by the new constitutional dispensation, particularly
section 39(2) of the Constitution and the Bato Star Fishing case.
(a) Facts of the Jaga case
The Jaga case involved Rambally Jaga, a man who had been convicted of selling unwrought
gold. As a result of this conviction, the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Dönges, served him with a
notice of deportation. Jaga challenged this notice, arguing that his prior conviction was not a
"serious offence" under the Immigration Regulation Act 22 of 1913, which allowed for the
deportation of a person who had been convicted of a "serious offence." The central issue was
whether the phrase "serious offence" could be interpreted broadly to include the crime he
committed, or if it should be interpreted restrictively, as per the literal meaning of the words in
the statute.
(b) Dominant Interpretive Approach: The Literal Rule
The dominant interpretive approach followed by the majority in Jaga was the literal rule (also
known as the orthodox or text-based approach). This approach holds that the primary source
of meaning for a statute is the text itself. Judges must determine the ordinary, grammatical
meaning of the words used by the legislature. According to this view, the intention of the
legislature is to be found in the language of the Act. If the language is clear and unambiguous,
the court must give effect to it, regardless of the consequences.
The majority in Jaga applied this rule by focusing on the specific words of the statute. They
argued that the phrase "convicted of a serious offence" was a factual statement that did not
require a court to look beyond the ordinary meaning of the words. They held that the conviction
for selling unwrought gold was a serious offence in a literal sense. The majority believed that a
court's role was not to speculate on the legislature's intent but to apply the law as written. They
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE 10
September 2025
For assistance contact
Email:
, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A)
This is a request to analyze a legal case, Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), and its relevance to
statutory interpretation in post-apartheid South Africa. The provided questions require a
breakdown of the case's facts, the dominant and alternative interpretive approaches presented,
and how these approaches have been affected by the new constitutional dispensation, particularly
section 39(2) of the Constitution and the Bato Star Fishing case.
(a) Facts of the Jaga case
The Jaga case involved Rambally Jaga, a man who had been convicted of selling unwrought
gold. As a result of this conviction, the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Dönges, served him with a
notice of deportation. Jaga challenged this notice, arguing that his prior conviction was not a
"serious offence" under the Immigration Regulation Act 22 of 1913, which allowed for the
deportation of a person who had been convicted of a "serious offence." The central issue was
whether the phrase "serious offence" could be interpreted broadly to include the crime he
committed, or if it should be interpreted restrictively, as per the literal meaning of the words in
the statute.
(b) Dominant Interpretive Approach: The Literal Rule
The dominant interpretive approach followed by the majority in Jaga was the literal rule (also
known as the orthodox or text-based approach). This approach holds that the primary source
of meaning for a statute is the text itself. Judges must determine the ordinary, grammatical
meaning of the words used by the legislature. According to this view, the intention of the
legislature is to be found in the language of the Act. If the language is clear and unambiguous,
the court must give effect to it, regardless of the consequences.
The majority in Jaga applied this rule by focusing on the specific words of the statute. They
argued that the phrase "convicted of a serious offence" was a factual statement that did not
require a court to look beyond the ordinary meaning of the words. They held that the conviction
for selling unwrought gold was a serious offence in a literal sense. The majority believed that a
court's role was not to speculate on the legislature's intent but to apply the law as written. They
