UNIT 5

CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Construction and interpretation of statutes involve understanding the meaning and application of legislative texts. Courts use various rules and principles to ensure that the intention of the legislature is honored. This process is essential to resolving ambiguities and ensuring that laws are applied correctly.

LITERAL RULE

The literal rule dictates that the words of a statute should be given their ordinary, natural meaning. This rule prioritizes the actual wording of the statute over any external considerations. See the case of Awolowo v Shagari (1979) where the court emphasized that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their literal meaning and the case of Dangana v Usman (2012) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria reiterated that the literal rule is the primary rule of interpretation. See also section 1 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which provides that words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined.

MISCHIEF RULE

The mischief rule seeks to understand the "mischief" that the statute was intended to remedy. It involves considering the law before the statute was passed to understand what gap or problem the legislature intended to address. See the case of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) which is an Australian case but often referenced in Nigerian courts for its detailed discussion on the mischief rule and also the case of Ugwu v Ararume (2007) where the Nigerian Supreme Court applied the mischief rule to determine the intention behind certain provisions of the constitution. See also section 4 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which allows for consideration of the purpose and intention behind a statute.

EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE

The ejusdem generis rule is a principle of statutory interpretation that limits the meaning of general words to the same class as the specific words that precede them. If a law lists specific categories followed by general terms, the general terms are interpreted in light of the specific ones. See the case of A.G. Lagos State v Eko Hotels Ltd (2006) where the Supreme Court applied the ejusdem generis rule to interpret the provisions of the Lagos State Hotel Licensing Law and the case of Osawaru v Ezeiruka (1978) where the court used the ejusdem generis rule to limit the scope of general terms following specific ones. See also section 7 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which is often cited when applying the ejusdem generis rule.

GOLDEN RULE

The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule. It allows the court to deviate from the literal meaning of the words to avoid an absurd result. This rule ensures that statutes are interpreted sensibly. See the case of Adetoun Oladeji (Nig) Ltd v Nigerian Breweries Plc (2007) where the Supreme Court applied the golden rule to avoid an unreasonable result from the literal interpretation of a contract and the case of Bamaiyi v The State (2001) where the court used the golden rule to interpret provisions of the Criminal Code to avoid absurdity. See also section 2 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which supports the use of the golden rule to avoid absurd results.

PURPOSIVE APPROACH

The purposive approach looks beyond the literal words to understand the law's purpose. It is used to ensure that the law is interpreted in a way that furthers its intended aim. See the case of A-G Federation v A-G Abia State (No. 2) (2002) where the Supreme Court used the purposive approach to interpret the constitutional provisions regarding resource control and the case of Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1980) where the court emphasized the need to consider the purpose and spirit of the constitution. See also section 4 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which supports the purposive approach by allowing consideration of the purpose behind the statute.

NOSCITUR A SOCIIS

The noscitur a sociis rule states that a word is known by the company it keeps. This rule means that words should be interpreted in the context of surrounding words. See the case of Ogun State v Aberuagba (1985) where the Supreme Court used the noscitur a sociis rule to interpret the provisions of the Sales Tax Law and the case of Salomon v Salomon (1897) which is a UK case, but referenced in Nigerian courts for its application of noscitur a sociis. See also section 8 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which provides guidance on interpreting words in context.

EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

This rule means that the express mention of one thing excludes others. If a statute explicitly mentions certain items, it is assumed that other items are excluded. See the case of A.G. Bendel State v A.G. Federation (1981) where the Supreme Court applied this rule to interpret the constitutional provisions on the revenue allocation formula and the case of A.G. Ogun State v A.G. Federation (1982) where the court used this rule to interpret the powers of the National Assembly. See also section 9 of the Interpretation Act (1964) which underlines the application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the construction and interpretation of statutes in Nigeria involve a blend of rules and principles aimed at deciphering legislative intent and ensuring justice. The literal rule, mischief rule, ejusdem generis rule, golden rule, purposive approach, noscitur a sociis, and expressio unius est exclusio alterius are essential tools in this interpretative process. Nigerian courts rely on these principles, supported by relevant cases and statutory provisions, to resolve ambiguities and apply laws consistently.