About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 569
|
|
LexisNexis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (2023-010096) [2024] ZAGPPHC 569 (13 June 2024)
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