[2] Statutory interpretation is broadly teleological, comprising as it does first the evaluation and then the application of enacted law.
Statutes derive binding force from their creators or legislators, who are empowered by the Constitution, and serve broadly to regulate the modern state.
Among the advantages of statute law is that legislation is accessible and therefore broadly "knowable;" that it is dynamic and flexible, and so easily amended; and that it promotes legal certainty, with a formal procedure required for its repeal.
Among its disadvantages is that, under a common-law system, legal certainty is frequently an illusion; it often falls to the courts to give "official" meaning.
There is also a danger of over-legislating, which can limit the development of a legal system and sometimes even undermine basic principles of fairness and justice, as with the misuse or abuse of legislative power for the ends of social engineering.
The oldest surviving statutes in South Africa are the old colonial Dutch placaaten, which are regarded as common law, and for whose demise no formal procedure is necessary.
"[11] Laws enacted prior to the establishment, in 1910, of the Union of South Africa, and after the 1806 British annexation of the Cape, have mostly been repealed or incorporated into other legislation.
[9] New-order legislation refers to the whole body statute law enacted in South Africa since 1994.
"Hierarchy" is classification of legislation according to the level of government (national, provincial or local) whereat it is passed.
University councils, for example, and the South African Towing and Recovery Association are so authorised.
The enacting provision of a statute acknowledges the legislator and authority responsible (be it national, provincial or municipal).
It is now generally agreed that the final Constitution of 1996 ought, in recognition of its supreme status, not to be cited with its statute number (although it has one).
Section 39(2) of the Constitution of South Africa provides that, "When interpreting any legislation... every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights."
[32] Per Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motors, "all statutes must be interpreted through the prism of the Bill of Rights" in the "spirit of transition and transformation [that] characterises the constitutional enterprise as a whole".
[36]: 85 The authoritative statement of the "reading down" method is Justice Sandile Ngcobo's judgment in Investigating Directorate (in which the court "read down" a provision of the National Prosecuting Authority Act to interpret the word "suspicion" as meaning "reasonable suspicion").
In that judgment, the Constitutional Court noted that the method is bounded by the requirement that the ultimate interpretation should be reasonable and not "unduly strained".
[33]: 21–26 Indeed, shortly before Investigating Directorate was handed down, the court had concluded in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs that the wording of another provision (section 25(5) of the Aliens Control Control Act, 1996) did not accommodate a constitutionally compliant "reading down".
[32] This sequence was summarised in Govender v Minister of Safety and Security, where the Supreme Court of Appeal set out a five-part formula for resolving constitutional challenges to legislation.
At that juncture, if such an interpretation is possible, the judicial officer must give effect to it; if it is not possible, he initiates steps leading to a declaration of constitutional invalidity.