Ngwenyama v Mayelane wedding after customary wedding

8
‘must’ prior to contracting the further marriage en ter into a contract regulating
the future marital property system of his marriages which must be approved
by the court. There is however no sanction for the failure to comply with s
7(6) because none was intended.
[14] The court a quo concluded that the use of the word ‘must’ indicates
that the legislature intended non-compliance with s 7(6) to invalidate a
subsequent customary marriage. It is trite that the primary rule in the
construction of a statutory provision is to ascerta in the intention of the
legislature by giving words of the provision under consideration the ordinary
grammatical meaning which their context dictates, u nless to do so would lead
to an absurdity the legislature could not have cont emplated. The language
used is but one of the ways of determining the inte ntion of the legislature, so
is the aim and purpose of that particular provision . Whilst words must be
given their ordinary meaning a contextual and purpo sive reading of the
statute is also important. This is more so in the c ircumstances of the instant
matter, where it is alleged that the interpretation accorded by the court below
offends some of the rights enshrined in the Constit ution. Ngcobo J in Bato
Star 7 explains the importance of context in statutory in terpretation as follows:
‘Certainly no less important than the oft-repeated statement that the words and
expressions used in a statute must be interpreted a ccording to their ordinary
meaning is the statement that they must be interpre ted in the light of their context.
But it may be useful to stress two points in relati on to the application of this principle.
The first is that “the context” as here used, is no t limited to the language of the rest
of the statute regarded as throwing light of a dict ionary kind on the part to be
interpreted. Often of more importance is the matter of the statute, its apparent scope
and purpose, and, within limit, its background.’
7 Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environme ntal Affairs & others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC),
para 89 citing Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A).