PANAYOTIS GEORGANDELLIS AND MOHAMED SID AHMED ABU SHAMA v. GREGORY JOHN FORUS | The Judiciary - Republic of Sudan

(COURT OF APPEAL)

PANAYOTIS GEORGANDELLIS AND MOHAMED SID AHMED ABU SHAMA

v.

GREGORY JOHN FORUS

AC-APP.30-1960

Advocate: Abdulla El Hassan ... for appellants

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. December 27, 1960:—The facts are short and simple. The plaintiff sued the defendants on a promissory note made and signed by the two defendants on October 20, I9 for the payment of £S.375. The date of maturity was August 1, 5960.

The plaintiff brought an action against both defendants for the payment of the value of the note. The defendants raised the defence that there was, a collateral agreement between the parties, but the learned Judge of the High Court decided that as there was no mention in the promissory note to such an agreement, the defendants must pay, and he issued a decree for the payment of the amount shown on the note and costs. -

Against this decision this appeal is made.

It is contended by advocate Abdulla El Hassan on behalf of the defendants, who are the makers of the promissory note, that the parties signed an agreement collateral to the making of the promissory note whereby they agreed to make the date of maturity of the said note subject to the arrival of the money from abroad. I called for the documents containing this alleged agreement. I found that the agreement was between the two defendants and that the plaintiff was not a party to it. The learned advocate cannot bring verbal evidence to support such a contention. He referred to a statement in 2 Halsbury, Laws of England 630 (2nd ed; 1953)

where it was stated: “Evidence in writing that an agreement was made contemporaneous or even subsequent to the date of the instrument may be adduced and may control the effect thereof.”

There is no evidence in writing apart from the two letters between the defendants, and as stated above, the plaintiff was not a party to them.

The promissory note produced before the court is an unconditional promise by the two makers of the note to pay the amount shown on it on the date of maturity.

The appeal is hopeless and should be summarily dismissed under Civil Justice Ordinance, Ord. XI r. 13A.

M. A. Hassib.J. December 27, 1960:- I agree. Appeal is hopeless.

The notes were unconditionally made by the appellants on the strength of the deed of October 6, 1959, which shows no condition whatsoever.

The collateral agreement from the letters exchanged between the two defendants does not affect or alter the position of the plaintiff who is a stranger to it and there is no privity between him and the defendants in respect of this agreement. The agreement therefore is no defence to the plaintiff’s case and should not be heard as there is no consideration moving from the appellants.

(COURT OF APPEAL)

PANAYOTIS GEORGANDELLIS AND MOHAMED SID AHMED ABU SHAMA

v.

GREGORY JOHN FORUS

AC-APP.30-1960

Advocate: Abdulla El Hassan ... for appellants

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. December 27, 1960:—The facts are short and simple. The plaintiff sued the defendants on a promissory note made and signed by the two defendants on October 20, I9 for the payment of £S.375. The date of maturity was August 1, 5960.

The plaintiff brought an action against both defendants for the payment of the value of the note. The defendants raised the defence that there was, a collateral agreement between the parties, but the learned Judge of the High Court decided that as there was no mention in the promissory note to such an agreement, the defendants must pay, and he issued a decree for the payment of the amount shown on the note and costs. -

Against this decision this appeal is made.

It is contended by advocate Abdulla El Hassan on behalf of the defendants, who are the makers of the promissory note, that the parties signed an agreement collateral to the making of the promissory note whereby they agreed to make the date of maturity of the said note subject to the arrival of the money from abroad. I called for the documents containing this alleged agreement. I found that the agreement was between the two defendants and that the plaintiff was not a party to it. The learned advocate cannot bring verbal evidence to support such a contention. He referred to a statement in 2 Halsbury, Laws of England 630 (2nd ed; 1953)

where it was stated: “Evidence in writing that an agreement was made contemporaneous or even subsequent to the date of the instrument may be adduced and may control the effect thereof.”

There is no evidence in writing apart from the two letters between the defendants, and as stated above, the plaintiff was not a party to them.

The promissory note produced before the court is an unconditional promise by the two makers of the note to pay the amount shown on it on the date of maturity.

The appeal is hopeless and should be summarily dismissed under Civil Justice Ordinance, Ord. XI r. 13A.

M. A. Hassib.J. December 27, 1960:- I agree. Appeal is hopeless.

The notes were unconditionally made by the appellants on the strength of the deed of October 6, 1959, which shows no condition whatsoever.

The collateral agreement from the letters exchanged between the two defendants does not affect or alter the position of the plaintiff who is a stranger to it and there is no privity between him and the defendants in respect of this agreement. The agreement therefore is no defence to the plaintiff’s case and should not be heard as there is no consideration moving from the appellants.

(COURT OF APPEAL)

PANAYOTIS GEORGANDELLIS AND MOHAMED SID AHMED ABU SHAMA

v.

GREGORY JOHN FORUS

AC-APP.30-1960

Advocate: Abdulla El Hassan ... for appellants

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. December 27, 1960:—The facts are short and simple. The plaintiff sued the defendants on a promissory note made and signed by the two defendants on October 20, I9 for the payment of £S.375. The date of maturity was August 1, 5960.

The plaintiff brought an action against both defendants for the payment of the value of the note. The defendants raised the defence that there was, a collateral agreement between the parties, but the learned Judge of the High Court decided that as there was no mention in the promissory note to such an agreement, the defendants must pay, and he issued a decree for the payment of the amount shown on the note and costs. -

Against this decision this appeal is made.

It is contended by advocate Abdulla El Hassan on behalf of the defendants, who are the makers of the promissory note, that the parties signed an agreement collateral to the making of the promissory note whereby they agreed to make the date of maturity of the said note subject to the arrival of the money from abroad. I called for the documents containing this alleged agreement. I found that the agreement was between the two defendants and that the plaintiff was not a party to it. The learned advocate cannot bring verbal evidence to support such a contention. He referred to a statement in 2 Halsbury, Laws of England 630 (2nd ed; 1953)

where it was stated: “Evidence in writing that an agreement was made contemporaneous or even subsequent to the date of the instrument may be adduced and may control the effect thereof.”

There is no evidence in writing apart from the two letters between the defendants, and as stated above, the plaintiff was not a party to them.

The promissory note produced before the court is an unconditional promise by the two makers of the note to pay the amount shown on it on the date of maturity.

The appeal is hopeless and should be summarily dismissed under Civil Justice Ordinance, Ord. XI r. 13A.

M. A. Hassib.J. December 27, 1960:- I agree. Appeal is hopeless.

The notes were unconditionally made by the appellants on the strength of the deed of October 6, 1959, which shows no condition whatsoever.

The collateral agreement from the letters exchanged between the two defendants does not affect or alter the position of the plaintiff who is a stranger to it and there is no privity between him and the defendants in respect of this agreement. The agreement therefore is no defence to the plaintiff’s case and should not be heard as there is no consideration moving from the appellants.