JUDGMENT

Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] This court begins by observing that the defence of non-est factum, while this doctrine existed at least as early as 1584, now no longer enjoys the same credibility in modern-age legal disputes. This doctrine is of limited application, mainly because of the uphill task of proving one. It is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances, such as where a party is illiterate, blind, or under a fundamental misapprehension as to the nature of the document signed, typically due to misrepresentation. It applies only in rare cases involving persons of full capacity and will not assist those who fail to take reasonable steps to understand a document's nature. Courts today are rightly cautious, if not outright sceptical, in accepting such a plea, particularly where parties have the ability and opportunity to understand what they are signing.

[2] In this case, the defendants are not wholly inexperienced or ignorant of their rights. The 1st defendant may have been formally educated only up to Standard Six, but she is not unfamiliar with legal documents. The 2nd defendant is a businessman with pre-university education and experience running a commercial ent