IOS2601
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 10 September 2025
, IOS2601
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due: 10 September 2025
Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A): Statutory Interpretation Across Eras
(a) Facts of the Jaga Case
In Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), the appellants, Jaga and Bhana, both Indian-
born, were convicted in a magistrate’s court for unlawfully purchasing unwrought gold
contrary to section 113 of the Transvaal Gold Law 35 of 1908. The transaction, arranged
by a police trap, involved their purchasing gold worth about £90 for £30.¹ Each was
sentenced to a fine of £50 or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, plus a further
three months’ imprisonment suspended for three years on condition they did not commit
a similar offence.²
Acting under section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act 22 of 1913 (as amended), the
Minister of the Interior deemed them undesirable inhabitants and issued deportation
warrants. They argued that a suspended sentence did not constitute being “sentenced
to imprisonment” for purposes of section 22.³ The Transvaal Provincial Division
dismissed their applications, and on appeal the Appellate Division—by majority—upheld
the decision.⁴
(b) The Dominant Interpretive Approach Before 1994 as Applied by the Majority in
Jaga
Before 1994, statutory interpretation was dominated by literalism, privileging the “plain
meaning” of statutory text and deferring to parliamentary sovereignty.⁵ Context and
purpose were secondary, invoked only where ambiguity existed.
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 10 September 2025
, IOS2601
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due: 10 September 2025
Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A): Statutory Interpretation Across Eras
(a) Facts of the Jaga Case
In Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), the appellants, Jaga and Bhana, both Indian-
born, were convicted in a magistrate’s court for unlawfully purchasing unwrought gold
contrary to section 113 of the Transvaal Gold Law 35 of 1908. The transaction, arranged
by a police trap, involved their purchasing gold worth about £90 for £30.¹ Each was
sentenced to a fine of £50 or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, plus a further
three months’ imprisonment suspended for three years on condition they did not commit
a similar offence.²
Acting under section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act 22 of 1913 (as amended), the
Minister of the Interior deemed them undesirable inhabitants and issued deportation
warrants. They argued that a suspended sentence did not constitute being “sentenced
to imprisonment” for purposes of section 22.³ The Transvaal Provincial Division
dismissed their applications, and on appeal the Appellate Division—by majority—upheld
the decision.⁴
(b) The Dominant Interpretive Approach Before 1994 as Applied by the Majority in
Jaga
Before 1994, statutory interpretation was dominated by literalism, privileging the “plain
meaning” of statutory text and deferring to parliamentary sovereignty.⁵ Context and
purpose were secondary, invoked only where ambiguity existed.
