Introduction to Contracts with Illiterate Persons
Lamide, a hardworking market trader in Lagos, had successfully run a small provisions shop for twenty-three years despite being unable to read or write English. She relied on her sharp business sense, memory, and occasional help from her children to manage records. One day, a well-dressed and persuasive man named Jakande approached her, promising to help her secure a larger shop space that would expand her business. Speaking in her native Yoruba, he assured her that all she needed to do was thumbprint a prepared document written in English, which he claimed was a simple shop agreement.
Trusting his explanation, Lamide signed the document. Weeks later, instead of receiving the promised shop, she was served with a court summons stating that she had signed a ₦2,000,000 loan agreement with high interest, even though she never received any money. Distressed, she consulted a lawyer, who discovered that the document lacked the required attestation confirming that its contents had been read and explained to her, as mandated by the Illiterates Protection Act.
In the Nigerian legal landscape, the sanctity of contracts is a fundamental principle. However, this principle is balanced by the need to protect vulnerable parties. For an illiterate person—defined by the courts as someone unable to read or write the language in which a document is expressed—the law provides specific “safety nets.” These safeguards ensure that any document signed by an illiterate person truly reflects their intention and was entered into with full understanding.
Legal Framework Guiding Contracts with Illiterate Persons: The Illiterates Protection Act
The primary statutory safeguard is the Illiterates Protection Act (IPA), originally a 1915 Ordinance now reflected in various State Laws, such as the Illiterates Protection Law of Lagos State. The “heart” of this law is Section 3, which imposes strict duties on the person preparing the document (the “Writer”).
Section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act provides[1]:
“Any person who shall write any letter or document at the request, on behalf, or in the name of any illiterate person shall also write on such letter or other document his own name as the writer thereof and his address; and his so doing shall be equivalent to a statement—
(a) That he was instructed to write such letter or document by the person for whom it purports to have been written and that the letter or document fully and correctly represents his instructions; and (b) If the letter or document purports to be signed with the signature or mark of the illiterate person, that prior to its being so signed it was read over and explained to the illiterate person, and that the signature or mark was made by such person.”
A key requirement under this Act is the presence of what is known as the “Illiterate Jurat.” The jurat is the attestation clause at the bottom of the document. For it to be valid, the writer must state that the content was read over and interpreted to the illiterate person in a language they understand.
Who is an Illiterate Person?
The definition of an illiterate person is important to determine whether such a person is entitled to the protection of the relevant law. Judicial pronouncements have shown that there is no single agreed definition.
In P.Z. Co. Ltd. v. Gusau (1962)[2], an illiterate is interpreted to mean ‘illiterate in the language used in the document under consideration’. This means that whether the language a person knows is Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, English, or French, it is irrelevant that the person might be illiterate in other languages.
The Illiterates Protection Ordinance defines an illiterate person in section 3 to mean a person who is unable to read the document in question in the language in which it was written, subject to the provision that the expression includes a person who, though not totally illiterate, is not sufficiently literate to read and understand the contents of the document.
In Osefo v. Uwania (1971)[3], Oputa J described an illiterate person as “a person who is unable to read with understanding the document made or prepared on his behalf.” The learned judge noted that illiteracy is purely comparative. A graduate in English may well be an illiterate in German.
Similarly, the Supreme Court held in SCOA Zaria v. Okon (1960)[4] that although a person may be sufficiently literate to sign his name and read figures, he may not be sufficiently literate to understand the meaning and effect of the document he is signing. In such a case, the provision of section 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act must be complied with.
Contracts with Illiterate Persons Concerning Land Transactions
When the contract involves land—one of the most common areas of fraud—the safeguards become even more stringent. Section 8 of the Land Instruments Registration Law (LIRL) provides:
“No instrument executed in Nigeria… the grantor whereof is illiterate, shall be registered unless it has been executed by such illiterate grantor in the presence of a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace and is subscribed by such Magistrate or Justice of the Peace as a witness thereto.”
Without this specific oversight by a judicial officer, a land document executed by an illiterate person may be rejected for registration, rendering it legally “incomplete” for certain purposes.
Legal Framework Guiding Contracts with Illiterate Persons: The Evidence Act 2011
The Evidence Act provides the procedural backbone for these protections. If a dispute arises, the burden of proof often shifts depending on whether the safeguards were followed. Section 119 of the Evidence Act 2011, while primarily referring to affidavits, establishes the principle of the “Jurat” which is universally applied to all documents executed by illiterates. It ensures that the court can identify the interpreter or writer if the document is later challenged.
Exemption for Legal Practitioners
Section 5 of the Illiterates Protection Act[5] provides an exemption for lawyers:
“This Act shall not apply to the writing of any letter or other document written in the course of his business by or at the direction of any person practicing as a legal practitioner.”
The rationale is that a legal practitioner is already an officer of the court, bound by a strict code of professional conduct. It is presumed that a lawyer will naturally explain the contents of a document to their client.
Limitations: Prevention of Abuse
While the law provides robust protections for illiterate persons, it is not designed to be used as a tool for fraud. In Agbara v. Amara (1995)[6],the court emphasized that:
“The Illiterates Protection Laws are meant to protect a person illiterate in the language of a contractual document from being cheated, if in fact he did not understand the document he has signed. The laws are not meant to be used as engines of fraud. An illiterate person may not use the provisions of these laws as a means of fraudulently evading trading obligations whose implications he was fully aware of at the time the bargain was struck.”
Thus, it is possible for a person who is technically illiterate to be denied the protection of the law if it appears that he understood the purport of a bargain, even though the other party failed to comply fully with the provisions of the law.
Conclusion
Lamide’s story illustrates the critical importance of the legal safeguards provided for illiterate persons in Nigeria. The Illiterates Protection Act, the Land Instruments Registration Law, and the Evidence Act work together to create a comprehensive framework that protects vulnerable individuals from exploitation while maintaining the integrity of contractual relationships.
These laws recognize a fundamental truth: the inability to read or write in a particular language should not deprive a person of the ability to engage in lawful commercial and legal transactions. At the same time, the law ensures that these protections are not abused by parties seeking to escape legitimate obligations.
As Nigeria continues to develop economically and socially, ensuring that every citizen—literate or illiterate—can participate confidently and safely in contractual relationships remains a cornerstone of a just legal system.
[1] Illiterates Protection Law, Cap I4, Laws of Lagos State 2015
[2] P.Z. Co. Ltd. v. Gusau (1962) 1 All NLR, p 244
[3] Osefo v. Uwania (1971) 1 ALR Comm. 421
[4] SCOA Zaria v. Okon (1960) NLR 34
[5] Illiterates Protection Law, Cap I4, Laws of Lagos State 2015
[6] Agbara v. Amara (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 410) 712 at p. 732
Contributors
Lead partner, EKO SOLICITORS AND ADVOCATES
Counsel, EKO SOLICITORS AND ADVOCATES
Idowu-Agida Oluwanifemi
Counsel, EKO SOLICITORS AND ADVOCATES