The judiciary is saddled with the primary duty of interpreting the law enacted by the legislature. The objective of the courts in the course of exercising this primary duty is to discover the intention of the legislature through the wording of the law. And in this process, the courts apply various rules to achieve this objective.
The three main rules of interpretation are;
1. THE LITERAL RULE: In this rule, the meaning of the law must be deducible from its face i.e words used in the statute are to be construed in their ordinary, natural or usual grammatical sense regardless of the hardship or manifest absurdity it may produce. According to the court in
Peerage’s case, if the wording of the law is clear then, no more is necessary than to expound it’s ordinary and natural meaning.
The principle that the wording of a law is to be construed literally is only a general principle which must be applied only where the wording is clear and unambiguous. An example of a case where this rule was applied is R v. Bangaza (1960) 5 F.S.C. 1.
2. THE GOLDEN RULE: This rule was established in Beck v. Smith (1836) 2 M. & W. 191 at p. 195, where the court stated, “it is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used or to the grammatical construction unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, or leads to manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience but no further.”
It therefore, follows that where the words to be interpreted are ambiguous, it is the duty of the court to interpret the words in such a manner as to avoid absurdity. A classic example of the application of the Golden Rule was given in Council of the University of Ibadan v. Adamolekun (1967) 1 All N. L. R. 213.
3. THE MISCHIEF RULE: According to
Dugdale and Farrar , this rule is also known as, “interpretation by reference to statutory purpose.” In applying this rule, the courts usually find the purpose of the law i.e the courts usually consider how the law stood prior to the enactment of the statute and discern the shortcomings or mischief of the old law which the new law has come to remedy or cure. The court is then, to construe the statute in such a manner as to “ suppress the mischief” and “advance the remedy” as in Heydon’s case.
Aside the three main rules of interpretation, there are other general principles of interpretation such as;
1. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia – the law does not compel the doing of impossibilities.
2. UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT – it may rather have effect than be destroyed. This principle applies where a provision is susceptible of two interpretations and it is found that by one interpretation, the provision would be valid and by the other, it would be invalid.
3. INTERNAL AIDS: In interpreting a provision of a statute, other parts of the statutes are referred to by the courts. For example, the interpretation section of the statute.
4. EXTERNAL AIDS: This includes dictionaries, other statutes which apply subject to the provisions of the statute under interpretation.

[/color][color=#990000] nice write up.