Case No.:

AC-RE V-4o 1957

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Contract—Parol Evidence Rule

·   Evidence—Parol Evidence Rule

When a transaction has been reduced to writing either by requirement of law, or agreement of the parties, extrinsic evidence of oral agreement relating to the same subject-matter is. in general. inadmissible to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of the document.

When a transaction has been reduced to writing either by requirement of law, or agreement of the parties, extrinsic evidence of oral agreement relating to the same subject-matter is. in general. inadmissible to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of the document.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

ABDEL SAFI EL SHEIKH v. FADL EL MULA IBRAHIM

AC-RE V-4o 1957

Advocate: El Rasheed Nayel………….. for the applicant

M. A. Abu Rannat C.]. July 16, 1957:—This is an application for revision by the applicant, Abdel Safi El Sheikh, against the decision of the judge of the High Court, Khartoum, awarding the respondent, Fadl El Mula Ibrahim, the total sum of £S.99.75om/m

The facts are shortly these. Abdel Safi El Sheikh sold a house in the Western Deims of Khartoum North to the respondent for £S.3o. The house is on a lease from month to month and terminable at a month’s notice. The agreement for sale was contained in a written document dated December 12, 1954.

The plaintiff (respondent) also claimed that he constructed some buildings which cost him £S.52.65om/ms.

The applicant denies that he received the £S.30 and alleges that he only received £S.6. It is contended on behalf of applicant that there is evidence to prove that only £S.6 was paid.

* Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C and M. 1. El Nur J.

As to the costs of construction it was not disputed in the court below.

In our view this application for revision must be dismissed. In the written document for sale the applicant admitted that he received the £S.30. When a transaction has been reduced to writing either by requirement of law, or agreement of the parties, extrinsic evidence is, in general, inadmissible to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from, the terms of the document. Therefore, the oral evidence which was heard by the district judge is in fact inadmissible, and the exceptions to this general rule were not in issue in this particular case. Even the evidence given by witnesses does not in fact shake the written terms contained In the document.

As to the expenses incurred by the plaintiff (respondent), even the tenants who were brought by the applicant as witnesses gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff did some construction work in this house, and no evidence in rebuttal of the expenses incurred was produced by the applicant.

We, therefore, think that the applicant did not make a case to persuade us to disturb the decree given by the judge of the High Court.

The application is dismissed with costs which are taxed at £S3 . .

M. I. El Nur 1. July 16, 1957:—I concur