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 in Transition
(a) Facts of the Jaga case
The case involved two appellants, Jaga and Bhana, both born in India, who were
convicted in the magistrate’s court for contravening section 113 of the Transvaal Gold
Law 35 of 1908 by unlawfully purchasing unwrought gold. The transaction, facilitated by
a police trap, involved the purchase of gold worth approximately £90 for £30.¹ Each
appellant was sentenced to a fine of £50 or, alternatively, three months’ imprisonment
with hard labour, plus an additional three months’ imprisonment suspended for three
years on condition they did not reoffend.²
Invoking section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act 22 of 1913, the Minister of the
Interior deemed them “undesirable inhabitants” and issued warrants for their
deportation.³ The appellants petitioned the Transvaal Provincial Division, arguing that a
suspended sentence did not amount to being “sentenced to imprisonment” under
section 22 and that the Minister had failed to consider the “circumstances of the
offence.” The petitions were dismissed, and on appeal, the Appellate Division, by
majority, confirmed the deportation.⁴
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 in Transition
(a) Facts of the Jaga case
The case involved two appellants, Jaga and Bhana, both born in India, who were
convicted in the magistrate’s court for contravening section 113 of the Transvaal Gold
Law 35 of 1908 by unlawfully purchasing unwrought gold. The transaction, facilitated by
a police trap, involved the purchase of gold worth approximately £90 for £30.¹ Each
appellant was sentenced to a fine of £50 or, alternatively, three months’ imprisonment
with hard labour, plus an additional three months’ imprisonment suspended for three
years on condition they did not reoffend.²
Invoking section 22 of the Immigrants Regulation Act 22 of 1913, the Minister of the
Interior deemed them “undesirable inhabitants” and issued warrants for their
deportation.³ The appellants petitioned the Transvaal Provincial Division, arguing that a
suspended sentence did not amount to being “sentenced to imprisonment” under
section 22 and that the Minister had failed to consider the “circumstances of the
offence.” The petitions were dismissed, and on appeal, the Appellate Division, by
majority, confirmed the deportation.⁴
