MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW
PUBLIC LAW DEPARTMENT

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (LB108)

MODULE OUTLINE 2020

Lecturer C. Hamadziripi LLB Hons (MSU) LL.M International Trade law (Stellenbosch)

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Statutory Interpretation is the process by which courts apply and interpret legislation. Legislation
dominates the contemporary legal landscape. Almost all fields of legal regulation involve
legislation in some form. The ability to interpret and understand legislation is a skill essential to
understanding law and its operation.

Purpose of the Course

• To provide insight into the nature and function of the process of statutory interpretation:
• To provide students with a thorough understanding of the various rules and principles
applicable in the interpretation of statute law/legislation.
• To introduce students to the nature of legal reasoning by studying case law.
• To teach students to able to extract principles applicable to statutory interpretation from
case law.
• To provide students with the ability to be able read, interpret and understand
legislation/statute law.
• To provide students with the ability understand the nature of constitutional interpretation.
• To introduce students to art of academic writing.

Learning outcomes and objectives

At the end of this course, students should be able to:

• Understand the rules and principles that apply to process of statutory interpretation.
• Apply the rules and principles of statutory interpretation to legislation/statute law -
Interpret the appropriate provisions of statute law using the accepted tools and
techniques of statutory interpretation.
• Understand the general structure of statutes.
• Know the basic layout of court judgements.
• Extract issues specifically related to the principles of statutory interpretation from case
law.
• Understand the nature of constitutional interpretation and particularly the way in which
constitutional interpretation impacts on the interpretation of ordinary legislation
• Know and apply the basic requirements of academic writing.

1
Teaching methods

• The role of the lecturer is to stimulate independent, critical thinking.

• class participation is key
• Students are expected to assume responsibility for their own learning. Students
will experience much difficulty in this course if they do not keep up right from the
beginning. The extent of their knowledge at the end of the course will depend on
the effort they put into the course.
• Lecturer will provide a notes, tutorial questions and cases which students must
work through to prepare for the lecture in advance.

MODULE OUTLINE & DETAILED READING LIST.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Historical background to Interpretation

1.2 General Interpretation

2 RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

2.1 Literal rule

2.2 Golden rule
2.3 Mischief rule
2.4 Purposive theory
2.5 The teleological or value-coherent theory
2.6 The effect of Section 15 B of the Interpretation Act on the application of the rules of statutory
interpretation

3 MAXIMS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

3.1 Ejusdem Generis

3.2 Expressio unius, exclusio alterius
3.3 Nositur a sociis
3.4 Contemporanea espositio
3.5 Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex
3.6 Reddendo singular singulis
3.7 Statutes in pari material

4 PRESUMPTIONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS

4.1 The legislature does not intend to alter the existing law more than is necessary.
4.2 Presumptions against retrospectivity
4.3 The legislature does not intend to be unreasonable or to cause injustice.
4.4 Presumption in favour of the principles on natural justice.
4.5 Presumptions against construing a statute so as to oust or restrict the jurisdiction of the
superior courts
4.6 Presumptions in favour of the principles of natural justice
4.7 Presumption of constitutionality
4.8 Unreasonable, unjust or unfair results are not intended

2
5 PEREMPTORY & DIRECTORY PROVISIONS

5.1 General
5.2 Semantic guidelines
5.3 Jurisprudential guidelines with regard to specific cases

6 AIDS TO INTERPRETATION

6.1 Internal Aids

6.1.1 The preamble
6.1.2 The long title
6.1.3 The short title
6.1.4 Headings
6.1.5 Marginal notes
6.1.6 Schedules
6.1.7 Punctuation
6.1.8 Interpretation sections

6.2 External Aids

6.2.1 The Interpretation Act
6.2.2 Dictionaries
6.2.3 International treaties & Conventions

7. CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
7.1 Restrictive clauses
7.2 Amendments

READING LIST
1. Bennion Francis, Statutory Interpretation 2nd Ed Butterworths (1992)
2. Cockram, G M, The Interpretation of Statutes 3rd Ed, Juta & Co. Ltd (1987)
3. Devenish G E, Interpretation of Statutes. Juta & Co. Ltd (1992)
4. Du Plessis L. The Interpretation of Statutes, Butterworths (1926)
5. Sir Ruport Cross, Statutory Interpretation ( An Introduction for Students) Juta & Co (1991)

STATUTES
1. Interpretation Act [Chap 1.01]
2. Statute Law Compilation & Revision Act [Chapter 1.03]
3. Constitution of Zimbabwe
4. Public Order & Security Act

DETAILED READING LIST

3
RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Literal rule
 Cross, pp46 – 48
 Cockram, pp 36-44
 Du Plessis pp 31 –33
 Devenish pp 26-33
 De Villiers v Cape Divisional Council (1987) 5 Buch 50
 Venter v R 1907 TS 190
 Ebrahim v Minister of the Interior 1977 (1) SA
 Minister of the Interior v Machadorp Investments 1957 (2) SA 395
 R v Padsha 1923 AD 281
 Lonhro Ltd v Salisbury Municipality 1970 (4) SA 1
 Jaga v Donges 1959 (4) SA 653
 Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Ltd v Distillers Corp (SA) 1962 (1) SA 485
 Van Heerden v Queens Hotel (Pty) Ltd 1973 (2) SA 14
 S V Mukunga & orths 1977 (1) SA 685 AD
 S V Kiley 1962 (3) SA 318

Golden Rule
 Cockram, pp 44-48
 Devenish, pp 28-33
 Cross, pp 48-58
 Du Plessis pp 35-39, 108ff
 Bennion pp 345-358
 Venter v R 1907 TS 910
 S v Robinson 1975 (4) SA 438 (RAD), 1975 (2) RLR 12
 R v Takawira and others 1965 RLR 162
 S v Takaendesa 1972 (1) RLR 325
 Agricultural Finance Corporation v Tettamanzi 1976 (2) RLR 51
 Lentell v Registrar - General and Another (1) 1979 RLR 62
 R v Sapreco Meats (Pvt) Ltd and Another 1970 (1) RLR 62
 Commissioner of Police v Wilson 1981 ZLR 451
 S v Mpofu 1978 RLR 435
 Pio v Smith 1986 (2) RLR 120 (SC)
 S v Nottingham Ests (Pvt) Ltd 1995 (1) ZLR 23 (S)
 Principal Immigration Officer v O’Hara 1993 (1) ZLR 69
 S v Masiriva 1990 (1) SLR 373
 S v Aitken (1) S - 166 - 92
 S v Kamnsisi S-204 - 93
 S v Zimbabwe United Freight Co. Ltd S - 186-89
 S v Mbizi S - 184-89
 Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Ltd v Distillers Corp 1962 (1) SA 458
 Bolo v Royal Insurance Co of Sa Ltd 1969 (32) SA 102
 Sobukwe and other v Minister of Justice 1972 (1) SA 693
 Principal Immigration officer v Hawabu 1936 AD 26
 New Rietfontein Gold Mines Ltd v Museum 1912 AD 629
 Itach v Koopoomal 1936 AD 190
 Volschen v Volschen1947 TPD 486

Mischief Rule
 Bennion, pp 635-656

4
  Cockram, pp 48ff
 du Plessis, pp 33-34
 Heydon’s case 3 Co Rep. 76
 Hleka v Johannesburg city council 1949 (1) SA 842 (AD)
 S v Meredith 1981 (3) SA 29
 Harris v Minister of the Interior and Another 1952 (2) SA 428
 Dedro Ltd v Krugersdorp Municipal Council 1920 AD 530
 S v Grant 1974 (2) RLR 190
 Attorney General v Chibutse 1976 (2) RLR (2)
 Commissioner of Taxes v F 1976 RLR 106
 S v Chitsa 1966 RLR 92.
 S V Ncokazs 1980 (3) SA 789
 Veuter V B 1907 TS 910

Purposive Theory
 Bennion p660 – 677
 Wilkins v Ancliff Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 1332
 Liversidge v Anderson [1943] AC 206
 Gold Star Publications v DPP [1981] 1 WLR 733
 Magaya v Magaya 1987 (1) ZLR 110 (SC)
 Katekwe v Muchabaiwa

Maxims of Statutory Interpretation

 Cockram, pp 144 - 157
 Devenish, pp 63-75, 136-139, 280-287
 Cross, pp 132-138
 Bennion, pp 853-878

N.B Focus is on selected examples

(a) Ejusdem Generis

 Re Stockport Ragged, Industrial and Reformatory Schools (1898) 2ch 687

 Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) 1 AUER 211
 Socks v City Council of Johannesburg 1931 TPD 443
 S v Van de Merwe 1977 (2) SA 774
 S v Makandigona 1981 (4) SA 439, 1981 ZLR 408
 S v Buthelezi 1979 (3) SA 1349
 Commissioner of Taxes v C 1980 ZLR 524
 Robb N.O. v Standard Bank Ltd or Another 1979 RLR 16
 Amberley Estates (Pvt) Ltd v Control of C & E 1986 (2) ZLR 269
 S v Davidson 1988 (1) ZLR 117 (SC)
 Cooper v Shield [1971] 2 AII ER 917

b) Expressio unius, exclusio alterius

 Lead Smelting co. v Richardson (1762) 3 Burr 1241
 S v Robinson 1975 (4) SA 438
 R v Barrington 1969 (4) SA 179
 Keeley v Minister of Defence 1980 (4) SA 695
 Taylor v Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Affairs 1954 (3) SA 956
 Dube v Chairman, Public Service Commission 1990 (2) SLR 181

5
  Hewlett v Minister of Finance and Another 1981 ZLR 511
 R v Ndhlovu 1980 ZLR 96
 Nkomo and Anor v Attorney-General and Others SC-187-93

(c) Noscitur a sociis

 Boune v Norwick Cremetorium Ltd (1967) 2 AIIER 576
 Bromley London Burough Council v Great London Council (1983) 1 AC 768
 R v Greenland 1962 (1) SA 51 (SR)
 Local Investment Co. v Commissioner of Taxes 1958 (3) SA 34

(d) Contemporanea expositio

 Fiat SA v kolbe Motors 1975 (2) SA 1
 Sv Ndhlovu 1979 (4) SA 208

e) Cessante Rationale legis cessat ipsa let

 S v Mujee 1981 (3) SA 800

Presumptions of Statutory Interpretation

 Du Plessis, pp 61-98
 Corkram, pp 77-143
 Devenish, pp 156-226
 Cross, pp 166-187

*N.B. Focus on Selected Presumptions

(a) Presumption of Constitutionality

 Minister of Home Affairs v Bickle & Others 1984 (2) SA 439; 1983 (2) ZLR 400
 Zimbabwe Township Developers (Pvt) Ltd v Lon’s Shoes 1984 (2) SA 778. 1984 (2) ZLR
376
 Minister of Home Affairs (Bermuda) and Other v Collins MacDonald Fisher & Another
(1988) AC 328
 Hewlett v Minister of Finance & Others 1982 (1) SA 490
 S v Marwane 1982 (3) SA 717
 S v Minnies 1991 (30n SA 364 (NM)
 Government of the Republic of Bothuthatswana & other v Segale 1990 (1) SA 434.
 CW v COT 1988 (2) ZLR 27 (H)
 COT v CW 1989 (3) ZLR 361 (5)
 In re Munhumeso & others S – 221 – 93
 Bull v Minister of Home Affairs 1986 (1) ZLR 202
 In re Mlambo 1991 (2) ZLR 339 (S)
 Salem v Chief Immigration Officer and Anor S-170-94
 Rattigan & others v Chief Immigration Officer S-64-94
 Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney-General & others S
73- 93

(b) Legislature does do not intend to alter existing Law

 Van heedern & other s NO v Queens Hotel 1973 (2) SA 14, 1972 (2) RLR 472

6
  Dhanabakium v Subramonian & others 1943 AD 160
 S v A S-19-90
 Fey & Anor MNO v Serfontein & Anor 1993 (2) SA 605
 S v Matare S-91-93
 Pretorious v Minister of Defence (2) 1980 ZLR 395
 Hama v NRZ 1996 (1) ZLR 664

(c) Presumption against retrospectivity

 Von Weiligh v The Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa 1924 TPD 66
 Bater v Anor v Muchengeti 1995 (1) ZLR 80 (S)
 R v Mazibuku 1958 (4) SA 353
 Mohamed No v Union Government 1911 AD 1
 Agere v Nyambuya 1985 (2) ZLR 336
 Faria v Claridge 1988 (2) ZLR 202
 CW v COT 1988 (2) ZLR 27 (H)
 Pretoria v Minister of Defence (2) 1980 ZLR 395
 Transportation Rhodesia 1964 RLR 150
 Nyakanyanga v Postmaster-General HH-19-89
 Mutendi v Maramba & Anor HH-89-94
 Kruger v President Insurance Co Ltd HB-95-91
 Stirling v Astra Holdings Ltd HB-95-91
 Nkomo & Anor v Attorney-General 1993 (2) ZLR 422 (S)
 Honda Sales (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes 2000 (1) ZLR 468 (H)
 Henks Commissioner (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Defence (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (1) ZLR 49 (S)

(d) Presumption that the legislature does not intend to be unreasonable or to cause unjustice.
 Persons to be treated on basis of equality.
 Taxation statutes to be strictly construed
 Penal statutes to be strictly construed

(e) Presumption in favour of the principles of natural justice

 R v Ngwevele 1954 (1) SA 123
 Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40
 Zimbabwe Teachers Association v Minister of Education 1991 (2) ZLR 48.
 Secretary for Transport v Makwavarara 1991 (1) ZLR 18
 Metsola v Chairman, PSC S - 156 - 89
 Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe v Mutasah S - 172 - 94
 Minister of Education and Training & others v Ndhlovu 1993 (1) SA 89

(f) Read the Texts for other presumptions

Directory and peremptory provisions

 Botha p. 175 – 180
 Doctor Daniel Shumba and Another V The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and
Another SC11/08.
 Moyo and another V Zvoma No and another SC 11/08
 Sterling Products International Ltd V Zulu 1988 (2) ZCR 293 (s)

7
  Standard Bank V Estate Van Rhym 1925 AD 266
 SA Co-operative Exchange Ltd V Director General Trade and Industry 1997 (3) SA
236
 Jenson V Acavalos 1993 (1) ZCR 216

Aids to Statutory Interpretation

Internal Aids
 Devenish, pp. 100-116
 Cockram, pp. 59-67
 Cross, pp. 112-138
 Du Plessis, pp. 112-128
 Interpretation Act [Chap 1:01]
 Bhyat v Commissioner for Immigration
 S v Sisulu & Others 1953 (3) SA 276
 Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. V Carmichaels’ Executor 917 Ad 593
 Jaga v Danges 1950 (4) SA 653
 Durban Corperation v Estate Whittaker 1919 AD 195
 Chondler v Dpp (1964) AC 763
 Chotobhoi v Union Government 1911 AD 13
 S v Liberty Shipping and Forwarding (Pty) Ltd & Others 1982 (4) SA 281
 African and European Investment Co Ltd v Warren & Others 1924 AD 308
 R v Njiwa 1957 (2) SA 5
 S v Yolela 1981 (1) SA 1002
 S v Davidson 1988 (1) ZLR 117 (SE)

External Aids
 Cross, pp 140-164
 Du Plessis, pp 131-136
 Devenish, pp 118-143
 Registrar General v Morgan Tsvangirai SC 12/2002
 PTC v Retrofit (Pvt) Ltd 1994 (2) ZLR 71 (S)
 Makuwaza v NRZ 1997 (2) ZLR 45 (S)
 Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart 1993 (1) ALL ER
 S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)
 Black-Clawson Ltd v Papierwerke AG 1975 AC 591
 Hewlett v Minister of Finance 1981 ZLR 571.

- End -