NHUNDU v CHIOTA & ANOR 2007 (2) ZLR 163 (S)

Flynote

Contract — evidence — parol evidence rule — written contract — when parol evidence may be led — contract conditional upon the happening of an event which has not yet occurred — extrinsic evidence thereof not precluded — parol evidence led with the object of incorporating condition precedent into agreement so as to enforce condition not admissible

Evidence — parol evidence — when permissible to lead such evidence — integration rule — recorded terms of an integrated contract — rule prevents a party from altering the terms thereof in order to rely on the contract as altered

Headnote

When a contract has been reduced to writing, the document is, in general, regarded as the exclusive memorial of the transaction and, in a suit between the parties, no evidence to prove its terms may be given, save the document or secondary evidence of its contents, nor may the contents of such document be contradicted, altered, added to or varied by parol evidence. The parol evidence or integration rule does not, however, preclude extrinsic evidence that the contract is conditional upon the happening of an event which has not yet occurred. However, if the object of leading such extrinsic evidence is not to prove the alleged oral condition precedent but to incorporate it into the agreement and then to enforce the condition by relying on the failure of the other party to comply therewith then the extrinsic evidence would be inadmissible.

In the law of evidence, the integration rule prevents a party from altering, by the production of extrinsic evidence, the recorded terms of an integrated contract in order to rely upon the contract as altered (dicta per Corbett JA in Johnston v Leal 1980 (3) SA 927 (A) at 943 followed).