Week 1 Introduction of the Subject and Statutes

The constitutional role of the courts is simply to interpret and to apply points of law derived from Acts of Parliament and delegated legislation. In short, they are responsible for applying the law and therefore, they must be a superior law-making body and independent from all government body.

When judges are interpreting statutes their aim is to give meaning to a disputed point of legislation as to show what Parliament appears to have intended called interpretation. The Interpretation Act 1978 provides some terms to be used. Some may be plain and have a straightforward meaning and some may be ambiguous and vague.

The words used in the statute are the main focus of the interpretation exercise and limit the freedom of the court. If any injustice occur after a statute was interpretation, the court is not free to create laws to fill the gap.

Statutory interpretation is therefore an exercise carried out by the court, with the aid of rules and procedures that are intended to decipher ambiguous and vague legislation.

In determining the actual meaning of the legislation, judges may use three traditional rules of interpretation which the court will employ to determine the intention of the statute. The courts also rely on rules of language and materials to assist in statutory interpretation. The three traditional rules of interpretation are;

The Literal rule

The Golden rule

The Mischief rule.

These rules are more an approach because judges have to use good judgement when interpreting the legislation.

Download Files

3314538.pdf (2.27 MB )

interpretation-of-statute.pdf (0.18 MB )