n Commissioner, SARS v Executor, Frith’s Estate 2001 (2) SA 261 (SCA) 273, the court held that “The primary rule in construction of statutory provision is (as is well established) to ascertain the intention of the legislator and (as is equally well established) one seeks to achieve this, in the first instance, by giving the word sunder consideration their ordinary grammatical meaning, unless to so would lead to an absurdity so glaring that the Legislature could not have contemplated it”.
Identify the approach to statutory interpretation that was used in this case and provide the differences between this approach and the opposite approach utilised in South Africa.
The approach to statutory interpretation used in this case is the literal approach. This approach involves giving the words of a statute their ordinary grammatical meaning, unless doing so would lead to an absurd result that the Legislature could not have intended.
In contrast, the opposite approach to statutory interpretation in South Africa is the purposive approach. This approach involves interpreting the statute in a way that best promotes the purpose or objectives of the legislation, even if this means departing from the literal meaning of the words.
The key differences between the literal and purposive approaches to statutory interpretation are:
1. Literal approach focuses on the plain meaning of the words, while the purposive approach focuses on the purpose or objectives of the legislation.
2. The literal approach prioritizes the text of the statute, while the purposive approach prioritizes the intentions of the legislature.
3. The literal approach may lead to a stricter interpretation of the statute, while the purposive approach may result in a more flexible interpretation.
4. The literal approach may be more conservative in its interpretation of statutes, while the purposive approach may be more dynamic and responsive to changing circumstances.