Lecturer; MRS.

Kaputo DUE: September 9th 2024

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION: Each group should select a Zambian statute or a section of any
statute. (Examples: The Penal Code, the Anti-Gender-Based Violence Act, the Environmental
Management Act, etc.). Research the chosen statute, focus on its purpose, historical context, and
any relevant case law. Identify the key terms and phrases within the statute that require
interpretation. Apply three different methods of statutory interpretation (literal rule, golden rule,
mischief rule, purposive approach or any other rules) to these key terms and phrases. Discuss the
implications of each method on the interpretation of the statute.

PREPARE A REPORT: Each group will prepare a report of between two (2) and the maximum
is four (4) that includes: an Introduction, Methodology (Explanation of the methods of statutory
interpretation used), Analysis/ Discussion and a Conclusion.

Group members information

Leon Chihana Gondwe LLB24127589

Simon Tawanda Hatongo LLB24125648

Chibesa Masalula Patrick LLB24122354

Chengelo Bernadette Khondowe LLB23221472

Kena Kachenga LLB23223730

Amos Zundah Chanika LLB24123195

Hastings Hangwengwe Chongwe LLB24125661

Statutes in certain cases need interpretation to be done to make sure that the meaning is
understood not only by the individual who phrased them but by individuals who would come
forward to understand them then comes the process of statutory interpretation. This work will be
showing the methodology of types of statutory interpretation that will be used and an analysis of
the very work and three rules will be used which are the mischief rule, the literal rule and the
golden rule on a chosen section from a statute which is the Penal Code 1 which we will apply the
chosen rules and the historical context to the section.

Statutory interpretation is the process where courts interpret and apply legislation; also known
as acts of parliament or statutes. Although sometimes the words of a statute may have a plain
meaning; in many cases there may be some level of ambiguity in the words of the statute that
must be resolved by a judge. To find the true meanings of statutes, judges use various tools of
statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative
history, and purpose. The task of interpretation may vary in difficulty. F.A.R. Bennion 2has
identified a number of factors that may cause doubt: 1. The draftsman may refrain from using
certain words that he or she regards as necessarily implied. The problem here is that the users
may not realize that this is the case. 2. The draftsman may use a broad term (“a word or phrase of
wide meaning”) and leave it to the user to judge what situations fall within it. 3. Ambiguous
words may be used. 4. There may be unforeseeable developments. 5. There are many ways in
which the wording may be inadequate. There may be a printing error, a drafting error or another
error. It is notable that the general methods of statutory interpretation are not themselves
regulated by Parliament, but have been developed by the judges.3

The methodology of the three statutes that will be show here will now be shown, starting with
the literal rule The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by
judges. Under the literal rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning
and applied without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the
statute.4 Case examples of the literal rule can be seen RE. R v Harris5 (The defendant bit off his
1
Cap. 87 of the laws of Zambia
2
(Statute Law, 1990),
3
Statutory Interpretation Lecture Notes ([Link]) 30/08/2024
4
Literal rule of statutory interpretation ([Link])
5
(1836) 7 C & P 446
victim's nose. The statute made it an offence 'to stab cut or wound' the court held that under the
literal rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as these words
implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore, the defendant's conviction was quashed.)

, Fisher v Bell 6 (The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag
on it. Statute made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was
quashed as goods on display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to
treat. The court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation.), Whitely v Chappel 7 (A statute
made it an offence 'to impersonate any person entitled to vote.' The defendant used the vote of a
dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be
entitled to vote. Held: The literal rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted.) next up
is the golden rule.

The golden rule is a rule of statutory interpretation and allows the courts to assume that
Parliament intended that its legislative provision have a wider definition than its literal meaning,
and so the grammatical and ordinary sense of a word can be modified to avoid the inconsistency
or absurdity created by an application of the literal rule, but no farther.8

Lastly is the mischief rule, The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the
rules. The mischief rule was established in Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36 Case
summary. In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where
there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court's role is to suppress the
mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy. As seen RE. Smith v Hughes 9 (The
defendants were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which
made it an offence to solicit in a public place. The prostitutes were soliciting from private
premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by the public. Held: The court applied the
mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was
aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.) The

6
[1961] 1 QB 394
7
(1868) LR 4 QB 147
8
Golden rule Definition | Legal Glossary | LexisNexis
9
[1960] 1 WLR 830
historical context that was researched was is The Zambia Penal Code was enacted in 1931 during
the British colonial rule and is Zambia’s foundational law concerning criminal law. This paper
examines section 200, which relates to the crime of murder and finds that it has its foundation in
the legal systems left behind by the British colonial masters. Originally, the code was meant to
establish a comprehensive and rationalistic system of norms that would provide guidelines for
criminal conducts and make legal norms comprehensible to the judiciary and the public. The
colonial legal system mainly focused on law and order and this was often to suit the colonial
masters as opposed to the people of the colony. When Zambia was moving from being a colony
to that of independence in 1964, the Penal Code turned out to be engage reed in fighting the
problems that a nascent nation faces in the context of governance, justice and the society. For
decades, the role of section 200 in Zambia legal system of serious crimes especially murder
cannot be overlooked. The requirements of the compulsory subject within this section introduced
the essential elements of murder, which is the intention of the defendant before performing the
act of killing the victim. This legal standard has been crucial in prosecuting violent crimes, and
thus influencing the perception of justice and safety. This specific section has undergone certain
modifications over the years which can be attributed to; social factors, existence of violence, and
need for a deterrent. Furthermore, there is now a growing number of Zambia’s legal rhetoric that
is grounded in the country’s obligations under international human rights law – and especially
the abolitionist stance on the death penalty and life imprisonment. These discussions are not
exceptional, but rather, they stem from a societal metamorphosis as the nation progressively
strives to accommodate modem changes which emphasize the importance of human rights and
dignity of individuals in its legal system. As Zambia has searched for its post-colonial self,
Section 200 remains a reference point in the discourse on justice, punishment, and rule of law,
which raises questions on the interconnectivity between colonial imprint and legal modernity.

Now the application of the rules of statutory will be used on the section 200 off the penal code to
show as an example of the use of statutory interpretation, section 200 of the Penal code states
that any person who is of malice aforethought causes the death of another by an unlawful act or
omission is guilty of murder. In this case the literal rule can be applied to the word of malice
aforethought getting it in its literal sense being the thought or mental state before the act was
committed if he or she intended to commit the act of murder as seen in the case of Lesley Mutale
v The people (which looked at the state of mind of Lesley Mutale before the act) then comes to
the Golden rule it being an extension of the literal rule in this case it being an extension adds the
elements of knowledge to the term of malice aforethought to help make the word reach an
appropriate conclusion in other cases as seen in the case of Dickson Sembauke v The people10
(where the courts held that murder is a crime that requires specific intent or specific frame of
mind). As for the mischief rule it basically looks at the mischief that was trying to be avoided in
this case it is trying to avoid people killing each other in that exact sense, if anyone dies in an
unlawful manner someone is to be held liable for their actions with punishments put in line for
their actions.

In conclusion the interpretation of Section 200 of the Penal Code is crucial in determining
criminal liability for murder in Zambia. The literal rule, while straightforward, may lead to harsh
outcomes or fail to capture the full scope of unlawful killings. The golden rule being an
extension of the literal rule in cases where the literal rule may seem too broad or vague. The
mischief rule offers a broader interpretation that can address more complex cases where intent is
not straightforward.

10
(1988 – 1989) Z.R.144 (S.C)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes

Penal code Cap. 87 of the laws of Zambia (section 200)

Cases

R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394

Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147

Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830

Dickson Sembauke v The people (1988 – 1989) Z.R.144 (S.C)

INTERNET SOURCES

Statutory Interpretation Lecture Notes ([Link]) 30/08/2024

Literal rule of statutory interpretation ([Link]) 30/08/2024

Golden rule Definition | Legal Glossary | LexisNexis