, IOS2601 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - Due 10 September 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
(a) Facts of the Jaga v Dönges case (6)
Jaga, an immigrant from Mozambique, was convicted of theft and
sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour.
The Aliens Act 1 of 1937 provided that “any person” sentenced to
imprisonment without the option of a fine was liable to be
deported.
The legal question was whether “any person” included individuals
who had lived in South Africa for a long time and were integrated
into the community.
Jaga challenged the deportation order, arguing that the statute
should be interpreted in a way that limited its harsh consequences.
The case reached the Appellate Division, where judges differed on
the proper method of statutory interpretation.
The dispute was not only about Jaga’s deportation but also about
the broader method courts should use when interpreting statutes.
(b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994 (majority in Jaga)
(14)
The majority judgment (notably Schreiner JA, though he leaned
towards the minority method, the majority view overall before
1994 was different) reflected the literal approach.
Core principle: Courts gave primary weight to the “plain
meaning” of the words in a statute, even if it produced harsh or
unjust results.
Semester 2 2025 - Due 10 September 2025; 100%
TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and
explanations.
(a) Facts of the Jaga v Dönges case (6)
Jaga, an immigrant from Mozambique, was convicted of theft and
sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour.
The Aliens Act 1 of 1937 provided that “any person” sentenced to
imprisonment without the option of a fine was liable to be
deported.
The legal question was whether “any person” included individuals
who had lived in South Africa for a long time and were integrated
into the community.
Jaga challenged the deportation order, arguing that the statute
should be interpreted in a way that limited its harsh consequences.
The case reached the Appellate Division, where judges differed on
the proper method of statutory interpretation.
The dispute was not only about Jaga’s deportation but also about
the broader method courts should use when interpreting statutes.
(b) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994 (majority in Jaga)
(14)
The majority judgment (notably Schreiner JA, though he leaned
towards the minority method, the majority view overall before
1994 was different) reflected the literal approach.
Core principle: Courts gave primary weight to the “plain
meaning” of the words in a statute, even if it produced harsh or
unjust results.
