Interpretation is the rational process of determining meaning of language used in legal text (doc statute or constitution) subject to any ROL in a specific context for the purpose of applying it to specific set of facts per Edzie. We interpret because words aren’t precise, are ambiguous, not static, grow, may have technical meaning per Towns v Eisher. Legislature may not know how statute should apply in future so courts develop more specific content on case-by-case basis.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society meaning of words is a matter of dictionary and grammar which is different and required to meaning of doc is what parties using words against relevant background would reasonably understand it to mean.
Interpreting Words: Primary rule-words or language be given their ordinary meaning as used by those who use it in private or popular public discourse vary from persons societies and countries, thus to them it is ordinary but to us outside it is tech, Golden rule-ascertain the gen purpose of legislation from words used by filling in the gaps of missing words or use other meanings where absurdity arises (explicit meaning-dictionary, legal, technical-term of art, meaning assigned to a word by specialized group of people, per Monta v Patterson Simons principle that tech words be given their tech meaning can’t be true if will lead to absurdity, or special meaning know to parties themselves, Implicit meaning-other meaning conveyed to reader not explicit, Implied meaning-being implicit or fill in a gap)
Rep v Special Tribunal ex parte Akosah per Anin JA referencing is allowed where words of the statute are imprecise, rival meanings have been placed on words by litigants, conflict in meaning and effect of two or more articles in constitution, conflict between article’s operation and institutions set up under constitution, where submission relates to no more than proper application of provisions to facts in issue, matter is for trial court no interpretation arises, per Ex Parte CHRAJ (Anane) Wood CJ safer for trial court to refer to SC than to presume there is no interpretation issue, per Agyekum v Boadi where issue to be interpreted has already been decided by SC no need for referencing.
Per Dr. S.Y Bimpong Buta whether a word is plain test is whether word excite real doubt, not fanciful or conjecture doubt, in mind of court as to their legal meaning, no need to create doubt when none exist per Lord Diplock in Duport Steels v Sirs. Ransford France (No3) v EC & AG any literal interpretation that would result in absurdity or unfairness or inconvenience should be avoided as rejected as being outmoded, Memorandum of Interpretation Act strict construction has given way to true purpose interpretation, Danso Acheampong v AG as literal interpretation may in context be right, it is a flawed one and common sense suggests that plain meaning needs be checked against purpose in constitutional interpretation.
Art 11(6) existing law construed with modification, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions necessary to bring it in conformity with constitution
Attah v Esson per Amissah JA customary law embodies the rules of conduct of the people at a particular time. These rules represent what is reasonable in any given situation in the society. Customary law, therefore, must develop and change with the changing times.