INTRODUCTION

This assignment will discuss the following, what are the followed rules of statutory interpretation, what
is the considered stance of the law with regards to children born out of Wedlock in zambia, then further
conclude what the next step the court should take as to the direction with regards to Sally Anne’s
status as an illegitimate child.

Rules of statutory interpretation

“The rules of statutory interpretation] are rather crude labels for describing a complex mechanism, i.e.
making sense of what someone else has written. The labels are still in common use, but they are
dangerous. For a start, they use the word ‘rule’, and this gives the impression that if you follow a
particular pattern you will not go wrong.” 1

Laws are created by Parliament; Judges interpret the laws using Statutory Interpretation. Draftsmen,
when drawing up statutes endeavour to ensure they are clear and unambiguous; however, statutes can
contain wording with uncertain meanings and with society’s progression, old statutes, though still
applicable, may contain wording unused in present day. There may be other errors unnoticed by
Parliament and statutes cannot cover every eventuality therefore; judges are required to interpret the
meanings of statutes using the Rules of Statutory Interpretation. There are four Rules of Statutory
Interpretation, these are the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach.

The literal rule requires courts to interpret statutes in their plain, literal and ordinary sense. The courts
will not examine the intention of Parliament. This rule is used frequently as judges are not authorised to
make laws and by following the statute to the letter judges cannot be accused of making law.

Occasionally use of this rule has defeated the original intention of parliament; an example would be
Whiteley v. Chappell. 2The use of this rule can lead to injustice, weaken society’s confidence in the law
and create precedents which require correction by Parliament.

The Golden Rule, is used where the literal rule would result in an absurdity or an obnoxious result. The
court investigates whether the statute wording conveys Parliament’s intention. This was held in case of
Sigsworth.3

Thirdly, the Mischief rule, used to interpret gaps (ultra vires) Parliament intended to cover and apply a
ruling that remedies the problem in ambiguous statutes. This rule is illustrated in Corkery V Carpenter.4

Illegitimate child in Zambia

1
Learning Legal Rules (7th edition) by James Holland and Julian Webb.

2
1868

3
1935] Ch 89

4
1951] 1 KB 102.

1
CHAPTER 12LEGITIMACY Legitimacy in Zambia is governed by the Legitimacy Act, Chapter 52 ofthe Laws
of Zambia.Legitimacy refers to the status of a child at birth.Ifa child is born in lawful wedlock, that is, to
parents who are married toeach other he or she is legitimate.The child is illegitimate if born toparents
not married to each other.There is a presumption of law that achild born in marriage is legitimate, that
is, the husband is deemed to bethe father of a child who is conceived by or born to his wife during
theirmarriage.5

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important for the court to adhere to the interpretation of the law based on the
mischief rule as it is this is to say with the lateral rule, this rule has positives, it does not question
Parliament therefore upholds the law made even where it seems illogical, thus preserving the
separation of powers.

However, the judges have a law-making role infringing on the separation of powers and giving
opportunity for a crime to be created after the event. Judges could make decisions based on their own
opinions which could lead to injustice.

The purposive approach is implemented to ensure the law is effective as Parliament would have
intended. This is used when interpreting Law, thus we are further guided in the case of Pickstone v
Freemans plc.6 .

Had the literal rule been applied in this case the UK would have breached its treaty obligations to give
effect to an EU directive.7

In statutory interpretation courts rely on presumption, language, intrinsic and extrinsic aids.
Presumptions are that common law has not been amended unless the Act shows intention to;
Parliament cannot have retrospectively amended the law. In criminal cases Mens rea is necessary.

The rules of language are Ejusdem Generis, a list of words is followed by general words, which are
limited to the same type of item as the specific words as seen in Powell V Kempton Park Racecourse.8
Secondly Expressio unius exclusio alterius the express mention of one thing excludes others; the Act
applies only to items in the list as seen in R v Inhabitants of Sedgley 9Finally Noscitur a sociis, a word is
known by the company it keeps and must be looked at in the context of the Act as seen in Muir v Keay .

5
Anthony Dickey Family Law3rdLBC Information Services 1997

6
1989 AC 66

7
Slapper, G, p186, 2009.

8
1899] AC 143

9
(1831) 2 B & Ad 65.

2
10
Intrinsic aids are matters within an act itself which may make the meaning clearer. Finally extrinsic aids
put an Act into context using case law, dictionaries from the time and historical setting.

In consideration of the above quotation it is worth noting that the Law itself is a structure based upon
rules, these rules are partly built upon social and moral rules. It is reasonable for Statutory
Interpretation to be labeled “Rules”.

Thus as the law stands there is no illegitimate child in Zambia and all children are presumed illegitimate
whether born in a marriage or not.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books cited

Bennion, F (May 28, 2009). Understanding Common Law Legislation: Drafting and Interpretation. Oxford
University Press. p. 12. ISBN 9780199564101.

Garner, Bryan A.. Ed. In Chief. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West
Publishing. p. 602.

10
1875) LR 10 QB 594

3
Scalia, Antonin; Garne, Bryan A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. ISBN
9780314275554. Blurred signposts to criminality will not suffice to create it.

Cases Cited

Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89

Whiteley v. Chappell (1868)

Corkery V Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102.