, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
1. The Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), which was delivered at the height of apartheid,
remains important for the interpretation of statutes after the democratic transformation. Kindly
read the case and answer the following questions.
A) Facts of the Jaga case
In the Jaga v Dönges case, two appellants, both born in India, were jointly tried after pleading guilty
to receiving unwrought gold unlawfully from a native detective constable, contrary to the Mines and
Works Act of 1913. Each was fined £50 or given three months imprisonment, with an additional
three months suspended for three years, conditioned on not committing a similar offence1.
Subsequently, the Minister of the Interior used Section 22 of the Act to deem them "undesirable
inhabitants" of the Union of South Africa and ordered their deportation. The appellants contested the
decision, arguing that a suspended sentence did not constitute a "sentence to imprisonment," and
therefore, they should not be subject to deportation under the Act.
B) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994
Before 1994, the South African courts followed a literal or formalistic interpretive approach, heavily
relying on the exact wording of the statute. This method was dominant during the apartheid era and
was employed in the Jaga case. The majority of the court interpreted Section 22 of the Immigration
Act strictly according to its text, which led to the conclusion that a suspended sentence fell within the
meaning of "sentenced to imprisonment." This view was grounded in a rigid reading of the statute,
emphasizing legal technicalities over the broader implications of justice or human dignity2 .
In the Jaga v Dönges case, the majority judges maintained that once the court imposed a sentence of
imprisonment, even if it was suspended, it still counted as a "sentence to imprisonment" under the
law. The decision followed a long-standing trend in apartheid-era jurisprudence, which often upheld
laws that enforced racial segregation and maintained the status quo through strict interpretations of
legislation. According to the majority, the issue at hand was not the execution of the sentence but the
legal status of the individual as "sentenced to imprisonment," which could still result in deportation1 .
This approach exemplified the broader philosophy of legal formalism in apartheid South Africa,
where laws were interpreted without regard to their consequences on human rights or social justice3 .
The formalistic interpretation often led to outcomes that were harsh and aligned with the oppressive
social and political goals of the apartheid regime, as it ignored the context or the effect of the law on
marginalized individuals.
The emphasis on literal interpretation also reflected a top-down approach to law where legal
language was regarded as supreme, and the social or humanitarian implications of the law were
secondary. During this period, the legal system often served to justify and reinforce the policies of
racial exclusion and inequality, and judges were reluctant to deviate from the prescribed legal text4 .
1: (Centlivres, 1950)
2: (Louw, 2007)
3: (Currie & De Waal, 2017)
4: (Du Bois-Pedain, 2010)
1. The Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), which was delivered at the height of apartheid,
remains important for the interpretation of statutes after the democratic transformation. Kindly
read the case and answer the following questions.
A) Facts of the Jaga case
In the Jaga v Dönges case, two appellants, both born in India, were jointly tried after pleading guilty
to receiving unwrought gold unlawfully from a native detective constable, contrary to the Mines and
Works Act of 1913. Each was fined £50 or given three months imprisonment, with an additional
three months suspended for three years, conditioned on not committing a similar offence1.
Subsequently, the Minister of the Interior used Section 22 of the Act to deem them "undesirable
inhabitants" of the Union of South Africa and ordered their deportation. The appellants contested the
decision, arguing that a suspended sentence did not constitute a "sentence to imprisonment," and
therefore, they should not be subject to deportation under the Act.
B) Dominant interpretive approach before 1994
Before 1994, the South African courts followed a literal or formalistic interpretive approach, heavily
relying on the exact wording of the statute. This method was dominant during the apartheid era and
was employed in the Jaga case. The majority of the court interpreted Section 22 of the Immigration
Act strictly according to its text, which led to the conclusion that a suspended sentence fell within the
meaning of "sentenced to imprisonment." This view was grounded in a rigid reading of the statute,
emphasizing legal technicalities over the broader implications of justice or human dignity2 .
In the Jaga v Dönges case, the majority judges maintained that once the court imposed a sentence of
imprisonment, even if it was suspended, it still counted as a "sentence to imprisonment" under the
law. The decision followed a long-standing trend in apartheid-era jurisprudence, which often upheld
laws that enforced racial segregation and maintained the status quo through strict interpretations of
legislation. According to the majority, the issue at hand was not the execution of the sentence but the
legal status of the individual as "sentenced to imprisonment," which could still result in deportation1 .
This approach exemplified the broader philosophy of legal formalism in apartheid South Africa,
where laws were interpreted without regard to their consequences on human rights or social justice3 .
The formalistic interpretation often led to outcomes that were harsh and aligned with the oppressive
social and political goals of the apartheid regime, as it ignored the context or the effect of the law on
marginalized individuals.
The emphasis on literal interpretation also reflected a top-down approach to law where legal
language was regarded as supreme, and the social or humanitarian implications of the law were
secondary. During this period, the legal system often served to justify and reinforce the policies of
racial exclusion and inequality, and judges were reluctant to deviate from the prescribed legal text4 .
1: (Centlivres, 1950)
2: (Louw, 2007)
3: (Currie & De Waal, 2017)
4: (Du Bois-Pedain, 2010)
