STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ā Construction of Statute ā Ordinary Meaning to Be Given to Clear and Unambiguous Words
Principle Statement
Where words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, courts must give them their natural, literal, and ordinary meaning, unless doing so would produce gross and manifest absurdity.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in NPA Plc v. Lotus Plastics Limited & Anor (2005) NLC-1032001(SC) at pp. 11ā12; Paras EāA.
"Where words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the rule of interpretation of statutes enjoined courts to give such words their natural, literal and ordinary meaning. In Toriola v. Williams (1982) 7 SC 27 at 47-48, Obaseki, JSC had this to say - 'The wording of the section seems to me clear and unambiguous and one does not have to search hard or strain one's imaginative and intellectual powers to get at the meaning and intention of the section. I must therefore construe the words of the section according to the ordinary cannon of construction that is to say by giving them their ordinary meaning in the English Language as applied to such a subject-matter in Nigeria unless some gross and manifest absurdity would be thereby produced.'"
Explanation / Scope
Clear statutory language must be given its literal and ordinary meaning. No strained interpretation is permitted absent gross absurdity. The principle applies to statutory interpretation. The rule prevents judicial rewriting of plain legislation.
