preview

Compare And Contrast The Orthodox Text-Based Approach

Satisfactory Essays

Introduction
In South Africa, the courts make use of two main theories and approaches applicable for the interpretation of legislation which are the orthodox text-based approach and the text-in-context approach . The approach which will be discussed below is the orthodox text-based approach and alongside the influence of the supreme Constitution on the interpretation of legislation. The case provided for the orthodox text-based approach is the matter concerning Ngwenyama v Mayelane & another. For the influence of the supreme Constitution on the interpretation of legislation the case concerning Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide will be discussed. By doing this, it makes it possible to witness and understand how legislation is interpreted …show more content…

• If often, texts seem vague, ambiguous and a strict literal interpretation of the text does not seem feasible or would lead to unwanted results the court will stray from applying the literal meaning of the text. This is known as the "golden rule" where the courts will then make use of "secondary aids" to try and interpret the actual intention of the text.
• If these "secondary aids" deem to be of no help in the interpretation of the text, the courts will make use of "tertiary aids" to determine the actual intention. These "tertiary aids" are common law provisions.
This approach is hugely influenced by English law and was adopted for four main reasons being :
1. It was accepted that the courts functions should be limited to the interpretation and application of …show more content…

Mr Mdeyide only put in a claim for the compensation of the accident in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act with the Road Accident Fund three years and three days after the accident.
Legal question:
Does the Road Accident Fund and the Minister of Transport have the right to limit access to courts and deny the right to claim for compensation?
Judgement:
The court ruled that the limitations set out within the provision provided by the Road Accident Fund is unconstitutional and that the prescribed period to claim is too inflexible and therefore cannot be justified.
Interpretation:
As stated above the Constitution is the highest law of the land therefore everything and everyone is subject to it. Any law or conduct that goes against it is seen as invalid. The influence of the constitution in this case can be seen as the Road Accident Fund Act goes against sections of the Constitution and the Prescription

Get Access