CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Supreme Court — Constitution of Court — Statutory Interpretation of ‘Shall’
Principle Statement
Whether the word "shall" in an enactment conveys an obligatory or merely directory meaning depends entirely on the context in which it is used. The principle applies equally to constitutions, statutes, and rules of court.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Tabai, JSC, in Associated Discount House Ltd v. Amalgamated Trustees Ltd No 2 (2007) NLC-123-289-2002(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–B.
"Whether the word 'Shall' in an enactment conveys an obligatory rather than merely directory or permissive connotation depends on the very context in which it is used and that its construction, whether used in the constitution, statute or rules of court is the same."
Explanation / Scope
This is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation. The word “shall” is not always mandatory; it may be directory depending on the legislative intent, subject matter, and consequences of a mandatory construction. Courts look at the purpose of the provision, whether it confers a right or imposes a duty, and whether a mandatory reading would lead to absurdity or injustice. The context is king. The principle applies to all legal instruments, ensuring that courts interpret provisions flexibly to promote justice and practical governance.
