By: Mujib Jimoh*
Abstract
This article addresses a universal, rare, but serious question which has not been addressed in legal scholarship: how do we interpret contradictions in words and figures in legal documents? In drafting legal documents, human errors may manifest this contradiction. For instance, an obligation may be required “within fifteen (30) days.” This rare problem presents a legal issue for the interpreter who must decide in a way: either to pick the word or the figure or reject both. In some common law jurisdictions, there are legislation and rules which express preference for one over the other. This article critiques such legislation and rules and argues that legislating a superior term between words and figures forecloses proof of what the parties agreed—if there ever was an agreement between them in the first place. This article applies the widely adopted Orthodox Theory of interpretation and tests its efficiency in resolving the contradiction. This article then argues that this theory is inefficient in resolving the contradiction, identifying and arguing for an evidence approach in resolving words and figures contradictions.
* LLB, BL, LLM (Duke), Corporate Compliance Analyst, Meridiam Infrastructure North America Corporation, Washington D.C. I thank the Editors of the journal for their work. I also thank Dr Muyiwa Adigun, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Ibadan, for valuable discussions. Also, I thank Mr. Chinedum Umeche (Partner at Banwo & Ighodalo) and Mr. Oluwamayokun David who first had the conversation about this paper with me some years ago. All errors are, however, mine.
Suggested Citation: Mujib Jimoh, Very Simple. Just Look at the Evidence! Interpreting Contradictions in Words and Figures inLegal Documents in Common Law Jurisdictions, 130 Penn St. L. Rev. Penn Statim 37 (2026).