EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSION ALTERIUS

WORDS LOSE THEIR ORDINARY MEANING ONCE DEFINED BY THE COURTS OR STATUTE

WORDS LOSE THEIR ORDINARY MEANING ONCE DEFINED BY THE COURTS OR STATUTE

C.B.N. v. Lidan Eng. Ltd. (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2053) 35 at 65, D—E: ‘The settled posture of the law is that once a word or a phrase in an enactment has been judicially or statutorily defined, it bears that meaning assigned to it and sheds/drops its ordinary or technical meaning. Put simply, the moment a word or phrase has received a judicial explanation or definition, a fortiori from the apex court, the courts are bound to kowtow to that meaning in subsequent proceedings.’

IF A STATUTE IS PLAIN, THE DUTY OF INTERPRETATION DOES NOT ARISE

In CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), the Court while applying the Literal rule of interpretation in its reasoning held thus: “It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain… the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” And if a statute’s language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that “the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.”