MKHANDLA V MUDZVITI & ORS 2003 (2) ZLR 168 (H)

Elections — urban council election — mayor — qualifications for election as mayor — O-level passes, including one in "English" — includes pass in English literature

Interpretation of statutes — ambiguity — ascertaining intention of legislature — word capable of two meanings

Words and phrases — "Pass in English"

Headnote

A court will usually refuse to hear a person who has disobeyed an order of court until he has purged his contempt. The fact that a party has disobeyed an order of the court is not in itself a bar to his being heard, but if his disobedience is such that, for as long as it continues, it impedes the course of justice by making it more difficult for the court to ascertain the truth or to enforce its orders, the court may in its discretion refuse to hear him until the impediment is removed. The question of urgency has to be taken into account. The party's conduct, however, will be a relevant factor in the determination of the question of costs.

A candidate for the post of mayor is required, in terms of s 103H of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15], to have at least five passes at O-level, including one in English. The applicant's opponent had a pass in English literature, but not one in English language.

Held, that the governing rule of interpretation — overriding the so-called "golden rule" — is to endeavour to ascertain the intention of the lawmaker from a study of the provisions of the enactment in question. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words alone do in such a case best declare the intention of the lawgiver. In the present situation, however, the legislature was aware of the existence of the two subjects, and chose not to specify

one or the other. It could thus be held to have intended that either English language or English literature would be acceptable.

Continue beyond the preview