Your policy is not a law, so the Interpretation Act won’t fill its gaps

Every Act of Parliament in South Africa carries a clause that nobody drafted. It is the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957, and it quietly settles questions the drafter left open: how to count a period of days, whether “he” includes “she”, and what happens to a matter already under way when the law it started under is repealed.

Section 1 says the Act applies to the interpretation of every “law”, and of all by-laws, rules, regulations and orders made under a law, unless the contrary intention appears. Section 2 defines “law” as any law, proclamation, ordinance, Act of Parliament or other enactment having the force of law.

Most of the documents organisations actually run on do not qualify. A leave policy approved by a board, a company’s procurement policy, a non-profit’s disciplinary code: these matter, they are often part of the contract of employment, and they end up in disputes. They are not enactments having the force of law, so the Interpretation Act does not reach them. A court or an arbitrator will still read a policy sensibly, but without these statutory rules, and the answer becomes harder to predict.

Here are five gaps the Act fills for legislation and leaves open in a policy.

One · Counting days

Section 4 says that when a number of days is prescribed, the first day is excluded and the last day is included, unless the last day falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, in which case those days are excluded as well. Saturdays are not mentioned, so they count.

A regulation that allows ten days from Wednesday 7 October 2026 therefore runs out on Saturday 17 October.

A grievance procedure that allows an appeal “within five days” gets no such help. Calendar days or working days? Does the day the outcome was received count? What if day five is a public holiday? Each question becomes an argument at the worst possible moment, usually after someone has missed the deadline and says they didn’t.

The fix is a definition. Say whether you mean calendar days or working days, define a working day (Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays, for example) and say from when the period runs.

Two · Gender and number

Section 6 provides that in every law, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender include females, and words in the singular include the plural and the other way round.

A policy that still says “the employee shall lodge his appeal” has no such rule behind it. Most readers will assume the policy covers everyone, and they are probably right, but a policy should not depend on assumptions when it is being tested. Draft in neutral terms and, where it matters, say that the singular includes the plural.

Three · Who may amend it

Section 10(3) provides that a power to make rules, regulations or by-laws includes, unless the contrary intention appears, a power to rescind, revoke, amend or vary them, exercised in the same manner and subject to the same consent and conditions.

Policies are often silent about their own amendment. May the chief executive update a travel policy that the board approved? May a committee change the thresholds in an annexure? If the policy says nothing, the answer lies somewhere in the founding documents and the delegations, and people will read those differently. One clause that says who may amend the policy, and which parts someone else may update, settles it.

Four · Matters already under way

Section 12(2) says that when a law repeals another law, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect anything duly done under the old law, any right or obligation already acquired or incurred under it, or any investigation or legal proceeding about those rights and obligations. Those may be continued as if the repealing law had not been passed.

A board that replaces its disciplinary code while a hearing is running has nothing like that to rely on. Does the hearing carry on under the old code or start again under the new one? Does a new sanction scale apply to misconduct committed before the new code was adopted? A short transitional clause, saying what happens to proceedings, applications and appointments pending on the day the new policy takes effect, prevents a dispute that could otherwise end up at the CCMA.

Five · When it starts

Section 13 provides that a law comes into operation on the day it is first published in the Gazette, unless another day is fixed, and that a law expressed to come into operation on a particular day does so immediately on the expiration of the previous day. In other words, at the very start of that day.

A policy is usually approved at a meeting, signed some days later and circulated to staff after that. Which of those is the effective date? Write it in. “This policy takes effect on 2 November 2026” does the job. “With immediate effect” leaves you arguing about which event was immediate.

Two ways to close the gaps

The first is an interpretation clause in every policy: definitions of “day” and “working day”, a rule on gender and number, the amendment power, a commencement date and a transitional provision. It seldom needs more than a page.

The second is to apply the Interpretation Act by reference, for example: “The Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 applies to the interpretation of this policy as if this policy were a law.” That is a useful backstop, but it is not a substitute for the first. The people who apply a policy are line managers and staff, not lawyers, and nobody should have to look up a 1957 statute to find out when a deadline falls. Put the rules that matter most in the policy itself.

A five-minute test

Take your organisation’s grievance or disciplinary policy and look for four things: a definition of “day”, a clause on who may amend it, a commencement date and a transitional provision. If any of them is missing, the policy is relying on a statute that doesn’t apply to it.

Sources: Interpretation Act 33 of 1957, sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 10(3), 12(2) and 13, as published by the Department of Justice and SAFLII. This piece is general commentary on drafting practice. It is not legal advice on any specific matter, and no professional relationship arises from reading it.