Wakilii

Namusisi and Others v Ntabazi (Civil Suit No. 887 88 Ruling)

High Court · [1997] UGHC 20 · 1997 Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on objection to admissibility of oral evidence in civil suit
Decision
Objection to evidence upheld; inadmissible oral evidence expunged from record

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that where a transaction has been reduced to writing either by requirement of law or agreement of the parties, the written document becomes the exclusive memorial and no extrinsic oral evidence is admissible to contradict or vary its terms under section 90 of the Evidence Act. Objection to the defendant's oral evidence upheld and such evidence expunged from the record.

Outcome

Objection to evidence upheld; inadmissible oral evidence expunged from record

Facts

The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 887/88 against the defendant. During trial, Exhibits P1 and P2 (sales agreements) were admitted into evidence showing that the late Sulaiti Jagwe purchased property for Shs. 940,000 with the first instalment of Shs. 560,000 paid by cheque. Both exhibits bore the signatures of the defendant (DW4) and the late Sulaiti Jagwe. During resumed examination-in-chief, DW4 testified about these exhibits and their contents. Counsel for the plaintiffs raised objection to this oral evidence on grounds that it was intended to contradict the written agreements, arguing such evidence is inadmissible under section 90 of the Evidence Act.

Issues

  1. Whether oral evidence is admissible to contradict or vary the terms of written contracts (Exhibits P1 and P2) where the transaction has been reduced to the form of a document.

Orders

  • Objection upheld.
  • Oral evidence of defendant (DW4) intended to contradict the terms of Exhibits P1 and P2 declared inadmissible.
  • Such oral evidence expunged from the record.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Written Contracts — Admissibility of Oral Evidence to Contradict Written Terms
Where a transaction has been reduced to writing either by requirement of law or by agreement of the parties, the written document becomes the exclusive memorial of that transaction and no extrinsic oral evidence is admissible to contradict or vary the terms of the written document under section 90 of the Evidence Act.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Exception Under Section 78
Under section 90 of the Evidence Act, no evidence save as mentioned in section 78 shall be given in proof of the terms of a contract or grant of property which has been reduced to the form of a document, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases where secondary evidence is admissible.
Contract Law — Written Contracts — Party Estopped from Challenging Validity
A party to a transaction which has been willingly reduced to writing by the parties cannot assert at one time that the transaction is valid and at another time assert that it is invalid for the purpose of securing some further advantage.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Fenekasi Semakula v E.S.M.S. Mulondo (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1982)
  • A. Barushare vs. Marita Ntarantambi and another 95
  • Ambu Nair vs. Kelu Nair [1933] 35 BOM L.R 807

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Namusisi and Others v Ntabazi (Civil Suit No. 887_88 Ruling) [1997] UGHC 20 (1 April 1997)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.