(b) No. The fundamental rule of interpreting the provisions of an Act is to give the words their ordinary and natural meaning, as found in a good dictionary. This is called the literal approach.

When the ordinary and natural meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the courts will not change that meaning by 'interpreting' the words in some other way, for example, by adding qualifications.

The reason for this is that the courts must give effect to the law as enacted by the legislature. It is not for the courts to change the effect of the law by adding to it, or taking away from it, as the judge in question might think fit.