Parole evidence rule is the principle in the law of evidence which tends to exclude an

extrinsic evidence which is provided by the witness for the purpose of altering, adding
or any change towards the document, this rule required that the document must be
proved by the document itself, that is to say it is only primary evidence required to
prove authenticity of the document. This rule is established in section 100. this rule
was also discussed in the case of Union Government vs Vianini Ferro- Concrete
Pipes1 in this case the court held that when a contract has been reducing in writing is
in general regarded as the exclusive memorial of the transaction by the witness in the
suit between the parties no evidence to prove its form may be given to save the
document no secondary evidence would be admissible for the purpose of contracting,
adding, altering or varying by parole evidence.

Also according to monir in his the book of evidence where it says the document
should be proved by the best evidence. According to monir the best way to prove the
authenticity of the document, is to prove the document by itself.

APPLICATION OF PAROLE EVIDENCE

The parol evidence rule was established in Tanzania in the Evidence Act 2. It provides
the circumstances in which this rule applies. Where the document concerning in the
contract granting or disposing of any property has been made in writing, no oral
evidence will be admitted to prove or disprove in issue concerning what is contained
in the document, this issue was discussed in the case of Nicholaus Mwaipyana vs the
Registered Trustee of the little sisters of Jesus Tanzania3. In this case land suit the
judge has to decide whether the principle of parol evidence rule could be applied, the
court held that the purchase argument added in writing could not be rebuttable by the
oral evidence by the appellant, the court held that according to section 1014 if there is
a contract which has been reduced to writing, no verbal evidence will be accepted so
as to add, subtract from or in any way to vary to qualify the written contract. The
court further provided that the rationale behind that rule was to uphold the value of
written proof and effectuate the finality.

1
1941 AD 43
2
Section 100
3
Civil Appeal. No. 276 of 2020
4
The Evidence Act
The rule also is used to protect the parties to any valid contract. This was explained in
the case of Charles Richard kombo Building v Evarani Mtungo and others5 In this
case the court held that once the contract was reduced into writing then its terms are
not to be varied, but by the contract itself.
EXCEPTIONS OF THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
The general rule is that the content of a document must be proved by the content
itself and no extrinsic evidence will be admissible, however there is exception to the
rule which is as follows,

1) Where the word contained in the contract is ambiguous. In this situation the court
has to take extrinsic evidence so as to help the court to interpret that word in order to
remove such absurdity and hence provide justice, according to Sarkar, in this situation
the court will not be deemed that its making a new contract or verifying a contract but
what is done by the court is to find extrinsic evidence in order to help the court to
reach the desirable justice. This fact supported by section 101(F) of the Evidence Act.
Here the court may read the dictionary, government policy as extrinsic evidence in-
order to remove such ambiguity. Parole can be admitted to determine the nature or
manner in which a document is related therein. For instance where there is an
ambiguity in document parol evidence may be admitted to clear such ambiguity or to
rectify, this was established section 1016. There are two types of ambiguity that can be
found in a document which are patent and latent ambiguity. According to this section
where there is a conflict between plain meaning of the language used and existing
facts or when they are kept together, the court may find out evidence that is extrinsic
so as to cure or overcome such ambiguity. In the case of Ramnairan vs Manki in this
case the court held that where there is ambiguity in the statement, the court may admit
parole evidence to ascertain the intention of the parties to overcome the problem
caused by the said ambiguity.

2) When parties have entered into a contract and it seems that the parties wish to enter
into a new agreement, this subsequent distinct agreement may be proved by parol
evidence. Parol evidence is admissible to show that the prior written contract has been

5
civil appeal no. 38 of 2012. Court of appeal Dar es salaam.
6
The evidence Act Cap 6 R.E 2022.
waived or replaced by a new parol agreement. This proviso deals with three
situations,
The first being that any contract not required by law to be in writing but by agreement
of the parties it is put into writing, any distinct subsequent oral agreement made to
modify or rescind it is admissible. Secondly is that a contract required by law to be in
writing for its validity, parol evidence can not be admitted to show any subsequent
agreement rescinding, annulling or modifying it. Thirdly the rule applies to all
registered instruments. In this instance parol evidence can not be admissible to prove
any subsequent agreement modifying or rescinding the registered document. It must
be done by an equally registered document. This proviso was well elaborated by lord
Denman in the case of Goss v Nugent7.

3) Another situation where the parol evidence can be admissible, is where the oral
agreement which constitute the conditional precedent attached to the written contract
were not followed, in such situation the oral testimony by the claimant will be
8
admissible to prove a written document, this rule is established under section 101(c)
also this principle was discussed in the case of Walker property investment Ltd v.
Walker9 in this case the contract was made partly orally and partly in writing where
the conditional precedent to the contract was made orally where such conditional
precedent was not concluded in writing, when the matter coming before the court, the
court has to decide whether terms made orally could be read into the written contract,
in this case the court held that the oral terms should be read in the written agreement
to form a comprehensive contract.

4) Another exception is that oral evidence will be admitted in the case of usage or
customer to annex incident to the contract, in this situation the extrinsic evidence is
admissible to explain the document where the matter is explained in the document in
such situation the oral evidence will be admissible to clarify that the parties to the
contract do not intended to be bound by only with the transaction in the document but
to contract with reference to known usage, this principle is explained under section
101(e)10.

7
(1833), 110 E.R. 713
8
The evidence Act Cap 6 R.E 2022.
9
[1947] LT 204.
10
Ibid
5) When the contract entered into by the parties contains any fact that would entitle
any person to any order or decree that would invalidate the said contract, oral or
parole evidence can be admitted. If the contact was fraudulently concluded, by
intimidation, illegally, by mistake of fact or law or want or failure of consideration.
For instance illegality, if the contract was entered into with terms that are in
contravention of the law, it automatically renders the contract void and so any parole
evidence can be admitted to prove that the contract is illegal. This was provided for in
the case of Lim Kar Bee v Doufortis Properties (M) Sdn Bhd 11. Want or lack of
consideration. Consideration is a vital ingredient of a contract and without
consideration no contract or the contract would be invalid. The case of Guthrie
Waugh Bhd v Malaiappan (SARKAR, 2016) (MONIR, 2016) Muthucumaru12 clearly
illustrates that parol evidence can be used to show that the contract entered to by the
parties is invalid or void for a lack of consideration.

11
[1992] 2 MLJ 281
12
[1972] 1 MLJ 35
Works Cited
MONIR. (2016). text book on the law of evidence ( tenth ed.). new delhi, india: universal law publisher.
SARKAR, S. (2016). Sarkar Law Of Evidence (Vol. 1). MALAYSIA: Vivar Printing Sdn Bhd.