100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
IOS2601 EXAM PACK 2024 CA$3.98   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  4.  
  5. Interpretation of Statutes (IOS2601)

Exam (elaborations)

IOS2601 EXAM PACK 2024
 320 views  12 purchases
  • Course
  • Interpretation of Statutes (IOS2601)
  • Institution
  • University Of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Book
  • Statutory Interpretation

IOS2601 Latest exam pack questions and answers and summarized notes for exam preparation. Updated for October November 2024 exams . For assistance Whats-App.0.6.7..1.7.1..1.7.3.9 . All the best on your exams!!

Preview 4 out of 832  pages

Document information

  • October 26, 2023
  • 832
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • ios2601

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

More summaries for

  • IOS2601 Assignment 2 (ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED
  • IOS2601 Assignment 2 QUIZ (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (777791) - DUE 23 August 2024
  • IOS2601 Assignment 2 QUIZ (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 (777791)- DUE 23 August 2024
All for this textbook (56)

Written for

  • University of South Africa (Unisa)
  • Interpretation of Statutes (IOS2601)
All documents for this subject (51)

Seller

avatar-seller
iStudy

Reviews received

Content preview

IOS2601
EXAM PACK




FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS MODULE +27 67 171 1739

,MAY JUNE
2023
EXAM

, IOS2601 EXAM 2023



1. In R v Mazibuko 1958 (4) SA 353 (A)?
a. The court relied on the common law rule that if there is a difference in
penalties between the date of the crime and the date of the trial, the date of
the trial will be decisive.
b. The appellant relied on the principle that harsher penalty could only have
been imposed in respect of crimes that committed before the amendment
came into effect.
c. The court found that if the penalty provided for in an Act is increased by an
amending Act, the presumption against retrospectivity applies.
d. The appellant appealed against a sentence of life imprisonment imposed for
robbery.



2. In which one of the following instances will the principle that legislation only
applies to the future not apply?
a. When legislation changes procedure.
b. Denies a benefit to an accused.
c. When legislation does not change procedure.
d. When legislation deals with the limitation clause of section 36 of the
constitution.



3. In which case were the techniques for interpretation of statutes identified, with
the exception of comparative interpretation?
a. Sigcau v Sigcau 1941 CPD 334
b. Daniel v Campbell 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC)
c. Fouri v Minister of Home Affairs 2005 (3) SA 429 (SCA)
d. Minister v Land Affairs v Slamdien 1999 (4) BCLR (LCC) 422 para 17

, 4. In which case did King J make the remark ‘an Act of parliament creates law but
not necessarily equity. As a Judge in a Court of law I am obliged to give effect to
the provisions of an Act of parliament. Speaking for myself and if I were sitting as
court of equity, I would have come to the assistance of the appellant.
Unfortunately, and on an intellectually honest approach I am compelled to
conclude that the appeal must fall.?
a. S v Mujee 1981 (3( SA 800 (Z)
b. S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)
c. S v Kohler 1979 (1) SA 861 (T)
d. S v Adams 1979 (4) SA 793 (T) 801



5. Choose one from the following underline the requirements that legislation only
commences upon publication.
a. That it should be gazette in keeping the common law traditions.
b. That it should be made known to the population to who it applies.
c. That the population should have ample time to comment on it.
d. That legislation should only pass with a popular mandate from the
masses.



6. In which case did the court decide that legislation that had been adopted after the
British had taken over the Cape should be interpreted in accordance with the
English rules of statutory interpretation?
a. Bhyat v Commissioner for immigration 1932 AD 125 129
b. Principal immigration officer v Hawabu 1936 AD 26
c. De Villiers v Cape Divisional Council 987 Buch 50
d. Union Government v Mack 1917 AD 731

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller iStudy. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$3.98. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
CA$3.98  12x  sold
  • (0)
  Add to cart