Draft Materials for Lectures on Statutory Interpretation

My lectures and course materials, including presentations, tests, outlines, and similar
materials, are protected by copyright law. I am the exclusive owner of the copyright
in those materials I create. You may not reproduce, distribute or display the lecture notes
or recordings or course materials in any other way — whether or not a fee is charged —
without my express written consent. You also may not allow others to do so.
©J Ayamunda 2020

 Statutes have difficult passages in them with certain words having wide meanings
 (hence the term: blurred outlines)
 It is the duty of courts/judiciary to decide on such difficulties and determine what
meaning to place upon the wording (i.e. construction of statutes)
 Toward that end, the courts strive or are obligated to arrive at the intention of legislators.
They do so by applying following rules, aids to interpretation and presumptions:

 Literal rule – words given ordinary plain meaning in their normal grammatical sense. If
they are clear follow them whether there is absurdity or not?

See eg - Republic v El Mann 1969 EA 357

Kamanza Chiwaya v. Manza Tsuma (Civil Appeal No 8 of 1972)

“A year or so ago, a swimming meet took place at the University of

Toronto. Most of the races proceeded as planned. But, at the end of one
race, there was a challenge to the winner of the race. The appropriate
group of official convened. The deliberations were lengthy and tense.
After much argument and poring over the rules, a decision was
announced: the winner had been disqualified and the second swimmer was
acclaimed the victor. The referee took the unusual course of offering a
brief justification of the committee’s decision – “the rules were clear (‘The
winner is the first swimmer to touch the side of the pool with both hands’)
and, if this regrettable outcome is to be avoided in future, it will be
necessary to change the rules”. The winning swimmer had only one arm”
(A C Hutchinson, Dwelling on the Threshold, Toronto, (1988), p23)

 Golden rule – This is an exception to the literal rule. Parliament never intends to enact
an absurdity. Therefore, courts may modify the wording just to avoid absurdity.
 See e.g. Re Sigsworth [1935] 1 Ch 98
R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367

 Mischief rule – The rule in Heydon’s case 1584 – if Parliament might have intended to
solve some mischief in common law, courts should make such construction as shall
suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

 Ejusdem generis rule – whether the word in dispute is of the same class or genus clearly
covered by the Act. In other words, general words that follow particular words are
interpreted with the same meaning. See e.g. Evans vs Cross 1938, 1 All ER 751.

 Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – the expression of one thing implies exclusion
of another or the other.

 Noscitur a sociis rule – The context rule ie the meaning of a word may be known by the
company it keeps. Put another way, words may be known or understood from their
accompanying words.

 Internal/intrinsic aids to interpretation include marginal notes, interpretation section in

the Act, preamble, long/short title, schedules, headings, side notes, etc.

 External/extrinsic aids include Interpretations and General Provisions Act,

memorandum accompanying the Bill, dictionaries, historical setting, previous statutes,
earlier case law, the Hansard (but see qualification in Hart v Pepper ie only in rare cases
where the issue of interpretation in question was addressed by the promoter of that
legislation and they made clear statement directed to that very issue), legal texts, treaties,
etc.

 Presumptions - They include: presumption against retrospective effect of legislation;

criminal liability is on basis of fault; Parliament changes law for the worse and so judges
should keep the mischief of its interference limited etc.