IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The position of common law on this position is correctly postulated by the Learned Trial Judge on pages 413 of the impugned judgment, where she stated thus: At common what is known as The Patrol Evidence Rule forbids the giving of verbal evidence in proof of a written agreement. This rule is stated in Chitty on Contracts Vol. 1, 28 th Edition paragraph 12 – 094 as follows “If there be a contract which has been reduced to writing, verbal evidence is not allowed to be given so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract.” It has been held that the operation of the rule is not confined to oral evidence it has been taken to exclude extrinsic matter in writing such as drafts, preliminary agreements and letters of negotiation. The English court of appeal held in the case of Henderson V Arthur (1907) 1 KB 10 that an attempt to put in evidence of an agreement antecedent to the written lease which forms the contract between the parties will be violation of one of the first principles of the law of evidence. To quote Collins MR at page 12 “It seems to me that to admit evidence of such an agreement as being so available would be to violate one of the first principles of the law of evidence; because in my opinion it would be to substitute the terms of an antecedent patrol agreement for the terms of a subsequent formal contract under seal dealing with the same subject – matter”. And in the case of Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor (1893) AC 317 at 321 the Privy Council held that previous verbal communications which had passed between the parties were completely superseded by the written agreement and could not be legitimately referred to either for 46
the purpose of adding a term to their written agreement or of altering its ordinary legal construction. In modern times it has been held in the case of Turner v Forwood (1951) 1 All ER 746 that the rule only applies where the parties to an agreement reduce it to writing and agree or intend that the writing shall be their agreement. An exception to the rule is where it is shown that the parties intend the agreement to be partly written and partly oral. Even then extrinsic evidence is admissible only to the oral part of the agreement. (See the case of In Gillespie Bros. & Co v Cheney Eggar & Co (1896)2 QB59). Our laws in The Gambia have given a nod to the position of common law on this subject matter via section 79 of the evidence Act of 1994, which states “All facts, except the content of documents may be proved by oral evidence. This position of the law as is backed up by the Evidence Act of the Gambia 1994, in S.138 thereof, where it states as follows: “When any judgment of any court in other judicial or official proceedings or any contract, or any grant or other disposition of properly has been reduced to the form of a document, or series of documents, no evidence may be given of such judgment or proceedings or of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of properly except the document itself is produced or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions herein before contained is given nor may the contents of any such document be contradicted, altered added to or varied by oral evidence.” 47
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BANNA
Page 3 and 4: (5) The Learned Trial Judge was wro
Page 5 and 6: 2. Whether the fact that the Defend
Page 7 and 8: appealing against two decision of t
Page 9 and 10: 4) The Learned Judge was wrong in r
Page 11 and 12: I have myself carefully perused Gro
Page 13 and 14: Bank of The Gambia V Continent Bank
Page 15 and 16: Evidence Act of The Gambia is in pa
Page 17 and 18: wrongful admission or exclusion of
Page 19 and 20: Furthermore, I am in complete conso
Page 21 and 22: It was submitted for the Appellant
Page 23 and 24: intends or conveys. What actually i
Page 25 and 26: ISSUE THREE Whether the Appellants
Page 27 and 28: The true parties to the said agreem
Page 29 and 30: 1. The Plaintiff’s is a limited l
Page 31 and 32: 3. The Defendant denies that it mad
Page 33 and 34: By letter of the 3 rd February, 200
Page 35 and 36: 23. Save as hereinbefore expressly
Page 37 and 38: The Plaintiff’s further averred t
Page 39 and 40: In the said letter the Defendants s
Page 41 and 42: 8. Paragraph 8 of the Reply of Stat
Page 43 and 44: Now the Appellant case at the trial
Page 45: 4 th of November 1998 and the 3 rd
Page 49 and 50: It is obvious that the foregoing le
Page 51 and 52: appellant. There is no doubt that i

IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?