Act of Parliament.

Common law rules.

Subordinate legislation made in terms of an act of parliament.

Subordinate legislation made in terms of a provincial act.

It must be accepted that the literal interpretation principle is firmly entrenched in our law and I do not seek to challenge it.

It must be accepted that the literal interpretation principle is firmly entrenched in our law, this should be challenged.

It must not be accepted that the literal interpretation principle is firmly entrenched in our law and I do not seek to challenge it.

It may be accepted that the literal interpretation principle is NOT firmly entrenched in our law.

Keyster v Minister of Agriculture 1908 NLR 522

Golden China TV Game Centre v Nintendo Co Ltd 1997 (1) SA 405 (A)

Finbro Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Deeds, Bloemfontein 1985 (4) SA 773 (A)

Novelty Machine Operators v Minister of Justice 1980 (2) SA 636 (A)

The Constitution.

Old order legislation.

Original legislation.

Subordinate legislation.

As a result of Roman-Dutch Law in England.

Because English law is so clear that only one final interpretation is possible.

The common-law tradition of England, in which the courts have traditionally played a very creative role regarding the common-law principles. Legislation was viewed as the exception to the rule, altering the traditional common law as little as possible.

The textual approach in England is adopted as a last resort, the contextual approach is considered first in this regard.

What was the legal position before the legislation was adopted?

What was the historical context before legislation was adopted?

What was the solution or remedy provided by the legislature to solve this problem?

What was the mischief not provided for by the existing legislation or common law?

Principal Immigration Officer v Purshotam 1928 AD 435

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Carolus 1999 (2) SA 607 (SCA)

Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality 1906 TS 308

Kent v SA Railways and Harbours 1946 AD 405

After consultation, as contemplated in section 5 of the National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act No. 27 of 1996), the Minister may determine norms and standards by notice in the Gazette regarding the funds used for the employment of staff referred to in subsections (4) and (5), but such norms and standards may not be interpreted so as to make the State a joint employer of such staff.

The governing body may allow the reasonable use of the facilities of the school for community, social and school fund-raising purposes, subject to such reasonable and equitable conditions as the governing body may determine which may include the charging of a fee or tariff which accrues to the school

When presenting the annual budget contemplated in section 38, the governing body of a public school must provide sufficient details of any posts envisaged in terms of subsections (4) and (5), including the estimated costs relating to the employment of staff in such posts and the manner in which it is proposed that such costs will be met

Subject to this Act, the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995), and any other applicable law, a public school may establish posts for non-educators and employ non- educator staff additional to the establishment determined in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994)

If the 'plain meaning' of the words is ambiguous, vague or misleading, or if a strict literal interpretation would result in absurd results, the court may deviate from the literal meaning to avoid such an absurdity

Irrespective of how clear or unambiguous the grammatical meaning of the legislative text may seem to be, the relevant contextual factors (e.g. the practical effects of different interpretations, as well as the background of the provision) must be considered

Once the meaning of the text and context e.g. language in context is determined, it may not be applied irrespective of whether the interpreter is of the opinion that the legislature intended something

The 'plain meaning' in the text should be strictly considered as this would be vague and misleading

S v Huyser 1968 (3) SA 490 (GW)

S v Labuschagne 1979 (3) SA 1320 (T)

S v Reed 1972 (2) SA 34 (RA)

S v De Bruin 1975 (3) SA 56 (T)