APPELLATE PRACTICE — Statutory Interpretation — “Shall” and “May” — Interchangeable in Certain Contexts
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Contract Resource Nig. Ltd & Anor v. UBA Plc (2011) NLC-123-292-2003(SC) at p. 5; Paras B—C:
"It is now well settled by this court that the word 'shall' does not always mean 'must' a matter of compulsion. It could be interpreted, where the context so admits as 'may' whereas 'may' is also not always 'may'. It may sometimes be equivalent to 'shall'."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that “shall” does not always mean “must” and may be interpreted as “may” where context admits, and vice versa. The principle applies in statutory interpretation. It ensures that words are interpreted in context. The principle reflects the flexibility of statutory language. It prevents rigid interpretation. The court must consider the context. The principle provides guidance on statutory interpretation.