KHOURY vs. N'JIE. [1956]DLWALR1164

Date	1956-11-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1956]DLWALR1164

[1956]DLWALR1164
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >2 WALR 175-177<o:p></o:p>November
26, 1956<o:p></o:p>KHOURY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>N'JIE.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">[Supreme
Court of the Colony of the Gambia]<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">Miles
C.J<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="style" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;Contract-Contract under seal-When variable by
subsequent agreement Consideration.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.7pt 5pt 29.75pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The plaintiff sold a house, by agreement under seal, to the defendant.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 1.15pt 5pt 16.75pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Of the purchase price of £18,000, £16,705 was paid on the
agreement, the balance being payable some two months later, on completion.
Within this period a further £1,000 was paid, leaving £295 outstanding: the
plaintiff sought to recover this latter sum. The defendant pleaded an oral
agreement subsequent to the one under seal whereby the plaintiff agreed to
forgo £295 in consideration of receiving the £1,000 before it was strictly due
and also of being allowed to remain in occupation rent-free until the date for
completion.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.9pt 5pt 17.25pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Held,&nbsp;(i) a promise to allow the plaintiff to
remain in possession rent free until the date of completion could not
constitute valuable consideration to support a subsequent oral agreement since
the plaintiff was, in any case, entitled to possession until completion.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.9pt 5pt 17.25pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(ii) Although an agreement to accept a smaller sum in
satisfaction of a debt of a liquidated. sum is a nudum pactum, as unsupported
by consideration, the payment of a debt, or part of it, before the due date for
payment constitutes sufficient consideration to support an agreement.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.9pt 5pt 17.25pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(iii) Although at common law a contract under seal could not
be varied by oral agreement since the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation)
Act, 1925, s. 44, the rule of equity has prevailed whereby a contract under
seal can be thus varied.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.7pt 5pt 1.15pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cases referred to :<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 133.9pt 5pt 13.9pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(1) Steeds&nbsp;v.&nbsp;Steeds&nbsp;(1889) 22
Q.B.D. 537.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 133.9pt 5pt 13.9pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">(2) Berry&nbsp;v.&nbsp;Berry&nbsp;[1929] 2 K.B.
316.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.75pt 5pt 0.7pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&nbsp; ACTION&nbsp;by the plaintiff to recover £295 as
the balance due under a contract under seal.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 157.15pt 5pt 15.55pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The plaintiff appeared in person.&nbsp;N'Jie&nbsp;for
the defendant.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.2pt 5pt 0.95pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MILES&nbsp;C.J. In this case the
plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of £295 being the balance due upon
a promissory note dated September 29, 1953. By an agreement under seal dated
September 29 the defendant had purchased from the plaintiff the premises No. 6
Wellington Street, Bathurst, for the sum of £18,000 of which £16,705 were then
paid. The deed provided that the purchase should be completed on December 31,
1953, by the payment of the balance of £1,295.<o:p></o:p><p class="style" style="margin: 5pt 0.2pt 5pt 0.95pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -5.8pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The defence to this claim is
that in the month of Oct</main>