Judgment No. SC 15/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 266/15 2. The Learned Judge erred and misdirected himself by failing to pay due regard to the provisions of clause 5 of the Deed of Suretyship which provided that it would remain in force until the appellant had agreed in writing to cancel the Deed of Suretyship. There was no written document cancelling the aforesaid Deed of Suretyship. 3. The Learned Judge misdirected himself by finding that there was a novation when the respondent had not alleged that the new Deed of Suretyship that was signed by Lazarus Nyakudya created a novation of the principal debt. The deed of Suretyship signed by the Respondent could not have been terminated by the Deed of Suretyship signed by Lazarus Nyakudya which said nothing about it. 4. The Learned Judge fell into error as the conduct of the parties quite clearly was not consistent with the intention to create a novation as the appellant did not cancel the original Deed of Suretyship. 5. The Learned Judge erred by admitting a letter written by the appellant’s Treasury Accountant to its Legal Practitioners as this evidence was inadmissible in terms of s 8(6) of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01]. From the grounds of appeal, there were two issues for determination. These were: 1. Whether there was a transfer of suretyship from the respondent to Lazarus Nyakudya. 2. Whether there was a violation of s 8(2) of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01]. I shall deal with the issues raised. 1. Whether there was a transfer of suretyship from the respondent to Lazarus Nyakudya. 4