Katebeleza v. Kazungu Civ. App. 25-m-70; 23/4/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

Katebeleza v. Kazungu Civ. App. 25-m-70; 23/4/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

The respondent entered into a written agreement with appellant whereby the respondent was to supply 30,000 burnt bricks to the appellant in return for a sum of Shs. 1,650/-. The respondent sued for Shs. 1250/- claiming that he had supplied the bricks but appellant had refused to pay the sum except the initial deposit of Shs. 400/-. The appellant admitted in the lower court the written terms of the contract but asserted that after the written contract, thee was a later verbal agreement that the respondent would pay for any bricks damaged in transit. The trial magistrate found for the respondent. On appeal.

Held: (1) “As to the argument by the appellant that there was a later oral agreement (in addition to the written contract) that the respondent was to be responsible for all the bricks damaged in transit, I would say that any dispute arising from a valid and operative written agreement must be looked at in the light of the contents of the written agreement.” (2) “Parol evidence is no usually admitted to add to, vary or contradict a written agreement. The appellant having in the first place chosen to reduce the contract into writing, anything purported to add to the original contract should have been reduced into writing. The alleged verbal understanding is therefore of no consequence.” (3) The evidence weighed against he appellant. (4) Appeal dismissed.