Phillips v. Phillips, Phillips, Philips and Coker (Civil Case No. 440/65))  SLSC 1244 (03 June 1967);
Contract-duress and undue influence-illegal agreement-equitable relief available on proof of duress or undue influence:
Documents-interpretation-admission of extrinsic evidence-to vary or add to documents-parol evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity:
Contract-illegal contracts-equitable relief-plaintiff must prove illegality and that consent procured by duress or undue influence to obtain relief
Land Law-conveyancing-fraudulent and voidable conveyancesundue influence-burden of proof-if influential relationship, burden on donee to prove donor's independent will:
Parol evidence may be admitted to resolve some ambiguity in the interpretation of a document (page 186, lines 25-27).
In order to obtain equitable relief in respect of an illegal transaction, a plaintiff must prove not only the illegality itself but also that his consent was procured under duress or undue influence (page 188, lines 17 21).
Where the relations between a donor and donee raise a presumption that the donee had influence over the donor, the burden of proof is on the donee to establish that it was the donor's
act in circumstances which enabled him to exercise an independent will (page 188, lines 25-30).