Statutory Interpretation

Question 1In Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison 1994 (4) SA 592 (SE) at 597F, Froneman J points out the following.“The interpretive notion of ascertaining ‘the intention of the Legislature’ does not apply in a system of judicial review based on the supremacy of the Constitution, for the simple reason that the Constitution is sovereign and not the Legislature. This means that both the purpose and method of statutory interpretation should be different from what it was before the commencement of the Constitution on 27 April 1994”.Write an essay of between four (4) and (5) pages in which you discuss whether the statement of Froneman J reflects the interpretative trend in South Africa post 1994. |

IntroductionThe promulgation of a supreme Constitution changed the approach of South African courts to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by Froneman J at 597F in the case of Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison 1994 (4) SA 592 (SE), as it applies to statutory interpretation is correct post 1994.The Interpretative approach adopted by South African courts pre-1994The Interpretative approach adopted by South African courts pre-1994 was the orthodox text-based (literal) approach. According to this approach the interpreter shouldconcentrate primarily on the literal meaning of the provisionto be interpreted. Botha state that the following rules to this approach; that * If the meaning of the word is clear, it should be put into effect; it must be equated with the legislator’s intention.In Principal Immigration Officer v Hawabu, it was stated that: “It is the primary rule of interpretation that, if the meaning of the text is clear, it should be applied, and, indeed, equated with the legislatures intention.” * If the ‘plain meaning’ of the word is ambiguous, vague or misleading or if a strict literal interpretation would result in absurd results then the court may deviate from the literal meaning to avoid such an...