CIVIL PROCEDURE — Interpretation of Statutes — ‘May’ — Construction as Mandatory
Ratio Decidendi
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Iyoho v. Effiong Esq & Anor (2007) NLC-123-326-2001(SC) at p. 9; Paras B–C:
"In dozens of cases, courts have held may to be synonymous with shall or must, usually in an effort to effectuate legislative intent."
Explanation / Scope
The word “may” in a statute can be construed as mandatory (“shall” or “must”) where the legislative intent requires it. Courts interpret “may” as mandatory when necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute. The context and purpose of the statute determine whether “may” is permissive or mandatory.