(COURT OF APPEAL)* SALAMA GIRGIS and Another vs. FALISTINE GIRGIS and Another (AC.APP-12-1956) Principles · Partnership existence of - non est factum - document "Where a person signs a document without reading the same he is bound by its contents unless he can prove that he was induced by fraud or deceit -to do so" Appeal The Appellants (Plaintiffs) and the Respondents were negotiating the setting up of a business relationship. The Appellants wrote out a document wherein the terms were set forth. The Respondents refused 10 sign this document unless it was headed “Partnership of El Obeid Business and inserted these words before signing the document. - The document being sent to the Appellants they signed the document without reading these words. There was other evidence indicating the existence of a partnership but the Appellants denied that the document indicated the existence of a partnership. The case is only reported on the point whether the Appellants are bound by their signature to the document. ‘ Advocates Hussein Wanni …….. for Appellants Fawsi el Tom ……………….. for Respondents (•) Court: Abu Rannat C.J.: Soni and Bedri JJ. Abu Rannat C.J. - In the first place it is proved by preponderance of evidence that the first defendant admitted that there was a partnership between him and the plaintiffs. Doctor Bereis, Salib Tobia and Bondi Morgos clearly state in their evidence that the first defendant had admitted to them on various occasions that the relation between him and the plaintiffs was that of partners. Furthermore, the document shows that the words ‘Partnership of El Obeid Business’ were inserted before, and not after the signature by the defendants. The evidence of Hakim Girgis and others show this. The document was originally drawn up without these words. When it was taken to the plaintiff he insisted that these words should be put on the document After they were put in he signed it, then the document was taken to the defendants who signed it. The defendants allege that they did not read this document and that they signed blindly. It is an established rule of law that a man who signs an agreement is estopped from denying liability over it, even if he did not read it, unless he proves fraud or deceit; there was not such an allegation by the defendants and if they had made such an allegation it should have been made an issue and tried properly by the Court So there is no question that there was a partnership between these parties. Soni J. I concur Bedri J. : I concur (Appeal dismissed)