Statutory Interpretation Principles

The court's function is to give effect to every word in the legislation, regardless of the circumstances.

The principle of assigning a meaning to every word is absolute in the interpretation of legislation.

Additions or subtractions can be made to the words used in the legislation to clarify their meaning.

The law is always static and does not change over time.

The ordinary meaning of the text when it was enacted must always be given effect to, regardless of later developments.

The courts have always been flexible in interpreting the purpose of the Act to deal with new technologies.

The English version of the legislative text prevails in the event of inconsistencies between the texts in all cases.

Statutory bilingualism allows the use of the other official language to clarify obscurities in the legislative text.

The court's duty is to read the section of the Act with regard to the meaning of the words used in the section only.

The purposive approach to statutory interpretation is based solely on the legislative context.

Punctuation can affect the meaning of the text.

The court's role is to ascertain the will of the judiciary and state its legal effect with reference to the facts of the particular case.

The court should consider the language of the rest of the statute when interpreting a section.

The passage suggests that a rigid and legalistic text-based approach to statutory interpretation is the most effective method.

The court's ultimate goal is to determine the will of the executive and state its legal effect with reference to the facts of the particular case.

The court should ignore the contextual scene when interpreting a section of the Act.

The principle of legality is not implied within the terms of the interim Constitution.

If the state would be affected by penal provisions, it will be bound by legislation.

The principle of legality and the rule of law have the same content.

The state's liability is automatically excluded if it is not bound by legislation.

The provision that the government's operations are not hampered by legislation is a form of lawlessness.

The court in Evans v Schoeman mentioned that the state will always be bound by legislation.

The principle of legality only applies to the Legislature.

The Teleological Dimension is related to the principle of legality.

The Contemporanea Expositio refers to the established use or custom of legislation after its adoption.

Subsecuta Observatio is an explanation of legislation by a person involved in its adoption.

The Comparative Dimension involves the examination of international law and the constitutional decisions of foreign courts.

The South African Constitution is an international instrument.

The long-term use of a measure is always the deciding factor in interpreting legislation.

Explanatory Memoranda are issued by government departments and state law advisors.

The Comparative Dimension is only used when there is a conflict between interpretations of legislation.

The court must consider the history and circumstances of South Africa when construing the Constitution.

According to the principles of international human rights and foreign law, a direct application is required without considering the South African context.

Courts are bound to follow international law and foreign case law in their decisions.

International treaties become South African law automatically upon signing.

Customary international law is not applicable in South Africa if it contradicts the Constitution.

Courts can never use foreign law to interpret South African legislation.

The courts have a duty to prefer an interpretation of legislation that violates international law.

International law and foreign case law have no role to play in the interpretation of South African legislation.

South African courts have always ignored foreign law in their decisions.