JAFTA J PAJA. A court that may be designated under PAJA is a district Magistrate’s Court or a court of regional division established by the Minister for purposes of adjudicating civil disputes, either generally or in respect of a class of administrative actions. [172] The distinction appears to be in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. While the Minister may establish courts and determine their competence, he or she may not determine who should preside over specific matters. Section 9A of PAJA reserves that power for the head of a particular Magistrates’ Court who may designate magistrates who have completed relevant training. [173] The definition of “court” in PAJA which pertains to Magistrates’ Courts has two components. The first is that it is a court for a district or regional division designated by the Minister in the Gazette. The second is that such a court must be presided over by a magistrate designated by the head referred to in section 9A of PAJA. [174] I remain unpersuaded that PAJA is helpful to the exercise of interpreting section 1 of RICA with a view to determining whether the Minister’s power to designate a Judge is implied. My opinion is fortified by the principle that it is statutes which are in pari materia (on the same subject matter) that must be read in conformity with one another. PAJA and RICA are not dealing with the same subject matter. In addition, one statute may not be used in interpreting another statute. [175] In Independent Institute of Education189 this Court had the occasion to consider what is meant by the expression: “[i]n this Act, unless the context indicates”. This was interpreted to mean that the defined meaning applies to the relevant Act only and that even then, it may not be applied if context indicates otherwise. In that matter, Mogoeng CJ stated: “More tellingly, the Higher Education Act opens its definition section in these terms: 189 Independent Institute of Education above n 164. 86