Roberts v Currie [1911] ZATPD 58 (1 May 1911)

Evidence - Written - Parol - Evidence - Proof that Written Document is not what it purports to be

Parol evidence is admissible to prove that a written document which purports to be a contract was not intended by the parties to be a contract.

The respondent, having attached a motor-car and desiring to realise the amount due to him under the attachment, signed a written document which, upon its face, purported to be a contract of sale of the said car by him to the appellant. The document, however, was executed merely to operate as evidence to third persons that the appellant had a title to the car and not as a contract of sale. The document was drawn up at the instigation of the appellant, who was aware of the real position. In an action by the appellant, founded upon the said document.

Held, that the respondent was entitled to lead parol evidence to prove that the said document was not a contract of sale
Stiglingh vs Theron, (1907) T.S. 998 distinquished).