EVIDENCE LAW — Parol Evidence Rule — Section 132(1) of Evidence Act — Oral Evidence Cannot Contradict Contents of Document — But May Explain or Clarify
Ratio Decidendi
Per Tabai, JSC, in Kazeem v. Mosaku (2007) NLC-123-230-2001(SC) at p. 18; Paras D–E:
"I cannot appreciate any alleged violation of section 132(1) of The Evidence Act committed by the learned trial judge. He was faced with the task of determining whether the vendors in Exhibit C were authorized and accredited representatives of the Agbaka family as a unit. On this issue even Exhibit C without more was sufficient proof."
Explanation / Scope
Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act embodies the parol evidence rule: where the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, that document is the exclusive repository of the terms. Extrinsic oral evidence is generally inadmissible to add to, vary, or contradict its terms. However, the rule does not prohibit oral evidence to explain latent ambiguities, identify parties or property, or prove the surrounding circumstances that inform the document’s meaning. The court must carefully distinguish between impermissible contradiction and permissible clarification. The principle ensures contractual certainty while allowing flexibility where the document itself is unclear.