Admissibility of Prior Testimony and Binding Effect of Compromise Agreement
ได้เลย จัดให้แบบภาษากฎหมายตรงประเด็น:
In the present case, the Port Authority seeks to rely on the prior testimony of Mr. Siri, who stated in separate proceedings that the disputed land belonged to Mr. Ngern. The issue is whether such testimony may be invoked to support an action for eviction against Mr. Siri.
It is submitted that the said testimony is inadmissible for such purpose. The prior statement made by Mr. Siri arose in litigation between Mr. Ngern (his father) and Mr. Siri, in which the Port Authority was a defendant. However, such testimony does not relate to, nor does it modify, the conditions stipulated in the compromise agreement previously executed between Mr. Siri and the Port Authority.
A compromise agreement, once validly concluded, is binding upon the parties in accordance with its terms. The Port Authority is therefore precluded from relying on extraneous facts or prior testimony to circumvent or contradict the agreed conditions. Any attempt to introduce such evidence to support an eviction claim would amount to a violation of the binding effect of the compromise.
Accordingly, the Port Authority cannot rely on Mr. Siri’s prior testimony to establish ownership in Mr. Ngern or to justify eviction. The parties remain bound by the compromise agreement.
(Reference: Supreme Court Judgment No. 784/2511)