CORAM
ADEMOLA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
UNSWORTH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MALLAM MOMO GUSAN
APPELLANTS
PATERSON ZOCHONIS & CO. LTD
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE-LITERAL MEANING
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant/2nd defendant was sued by the 1st respondent/plaintiff as the guarantor of a contract in which he entered with the 1st defendant/2nd respondent in a bid to recover money due and owing. He argues he was not bound by the contract as he is an illiterate. Judgment was found in his favour. The appellant aggrieved appealed to this Court.
HELD
For the reasons given by me in this judgment I would dismiss this appeal with costs assessed at 20 guineas.
ISSUES
The trial Judge erred in holding that the guarantee was written by the Manager of the respondent company when the typist was the writer.
The trial Judge erred in holding that s.3 of the Illiterates Protec-tion Act was complied with
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHO IS AN ILLITERATE?
‘To hold that a person is illiterate or not literate because he is unable to read or write in a particular language, even if the document concerned was written in that lan-guage, is in my view to stretch the meaning of the word to an absurdity.’ Per TAYLOR F.J.
THE ILLITERATES PROTECTION ACT-PURPORT OF
The Illiterates Protection Act was designed to protect illit-erates from being taken advantage of by being made to sign or acknowledge a writing or document which does not bear out their real intention. In the case on appeal before us the trial Judge has found as a fact, and it has not been challenged, that this document truly represents the intention of the ap-pellant; that it was interpreted to him; that he understood it and agreed to it before appending his signature. Per TAYLOR F.J.
CASES CITED
S. C.O.A. v. Okon (F.S.C. 147/ 1959-unreported)
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Illiterates Protec-tion Act