LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (2023-010096) [2024] ZAGPPHC 569 (13 June 2024)
The court held that the words 'in the presence of' in the Regulations are clear and unambiguous. While modern technology may allow the regulatory purpose to be achieved in new ways, it is not for the court to substitute the literal meaning of statutory language with a businesslike or modern interpretation. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 569
- Parties
- Applicant: LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023-010096
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Swanepoel
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Interpretation, Purposive Approach, Regulatory Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the words 'in the presence of' in the relevant Regulations should be interpreted purposively to accommodate modern technology.
- 2 Whether the court may substitute the literal meaning of statutory language with a businesslike or sensible interpretation in light of technological developments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the words 'in the presence of' in the Regulations are clear and unambiguous. While modern technology may allow the regulatory purpose to be achieved in new ways, it is not for the court to substitute the literal meaning of statutory language with a businesslike or modern interpretation. The court emphasized that a purposive approach is only warranted where the language is unclear, which is not the case here. Any amendment to the wording of the Regulations to accommodate technological developments is the prerogative of the legislature, not the judiciary.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case number: 2023-010096
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 13 JUNE 2024
SIGNATURE:
In the matter of:
LEXISNEXIS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against my order of 29 April 2024 dismissing the application. The grounds for leave to appeal essentially repeat the averments made in the papers, upon which I have already expressed my views in the aforementioned judgment.
[2] Applicant says that in interpreting the words "in the presence of" I should have taken a purposive approach considering the modern technologies now available, and that I should have substituted the words used "with words to be regarded as reasonable, sensible or businesslike".
[3]
As much as I agree with counsel for the applicant that modern technology lends itself to achieving the goals of the Regulations by modern means, I disagree that this is a matter for the Courts to decide. In my view the applicant misses the point as far as interpretation of documents is concerned, which is that the interpreter is tasked with finding the meaning of the words used, given the context and purpose within which they were written and the "circumstances attendant upon its coming into existence".[1] (my emphasis)
[4] The Regulations were written at a time when no one conceived of the possibility of communicating through the internet. The meaning of the words used in the Regulations is clear, and I do not understand counsel for the applicant to argue otherwise. What he contends for is that given the development of technology one should re-interpret the words in a purposive manner and give them a meaning that is businesslike in a modern context. This argument again misses a point: A purposive approach is only permissible when the "language of a provision lets the interpreter down. The purposive approach is, in other words, second to the literalist-cum-intentionalist approach: as a rule 'ordinary' or 'clear and unambiguous language' trumps other indicia of policy, object or purpose".[2]
[5] The meaning of the words is clear. The fact that technology has developed, and that it allows one to achieve the regulatory purpose in another more businesslike fashion, does not make it permissible to put a different meaning on the words as opposed to their original meaning. That would be encroaching onto the terrain of the legislator, and it is for the latter to amend the wording of the Regulations if it is of the view that an amendment is required.
[6] In the circumstances I make the following order: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
SWANEPOEL J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Adv C. Thompson ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT: Lee Attorneys DATE HEARD: 31 May 2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13 June 2024
[1] Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) at para 18
[2] Du Plessis, L, Re-Interpretation of Statutes, Butterworths, Durban, page 118