Case No.:

AC-REV-88-1962

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1962

Principles

·  Evidence—Parol Evidence rule—Exception where writing not intended to express entire agreement—Additional terms Con tract—Parol evidence rule—Exception where writing not intended to express entire agreement—Additional terms

Where a court infers that a contractual document does not contain the whole agreement between the parties, proof may be admitted of any omitted oral term, not inconsistent with documentary terms, which is agreed between the parties before or at the time of the execution of the contractual document.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL) *

ADAM ABDEL GADIR v. MOHAMED ABDEL GADIR AND ANOTHER

AC-REV-88-1962

Advocate: El Rasheed Nayel ... for plaintiff-applicant

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. June 2 1962: —The facts are set out in the judgment of District Judge, Dueim, and I need not repeat them.

Advocate Rasheed Nayel contends on behalf of the plaintiff (the applicant in this revision) that the decision of the District Judge was wrong on three points:

First that the agreement was in writing and therefore extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to add to it.

Secondly, there was consideration for the agreement as applicant had land within the scheme for which he claimed no rent.

Thirdly, the expenses for the preparation of the scheme should be shared by all the parties and that neither the applicant nor the respondents paid anything.

In reply to these three points, I make the following observations.

There are exceptions to the first point in that “where a contract, not required by law to be in writing, purports to be contained in a document which the court infers was not intended to express the whole agreement between the parties, proof may be given of any omitted or supplemental oral term, expressly or impliedly agreed between them before or at the time of executing the document, if it be not inconsistent with the documentary terms . . .“ Phipson, Evidence 603 (9th ed. 1952). The court heard evidence which shows that applicant was bound to pay £S. which he failed to pay and the court was convinced that he agreed to that condition before the agreement was reduced to writing. The District Judge was entitled to draw the inference that there was such a condition.

As to the second point, the applicant has fallow land which was not included in the scheme and that there are many other shareholders who had no land in the scheme or near it.

As to the third point, applicant was not originally a shareholder, but he was allowed to have a with respondents if he paid £S.S towards preparatory expenses. This he failed to do.

I dismiss the application summarily.

* Court: M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.