ESTOPPEL

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "The principle of law is that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation and of adjudication before a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case. It will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject matter of litigation in respect of the same matter which ought to have been brought forward as part of the subject in contract but which was not brought forward only because they have by inadvertence or deliberately omitted part of their case." - Per Fasanmi, J.C.A., in Oilserve Ltd. v. Global Gas & Refining Ltd. Suit No. CA/PH/169/2010; (2014) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1411) 200 at 214.

(2) "In considering whether the admitted facts, in other words, the above averments amount to estoppel the learned trial Judge observed in his ruling as follows - "Coming to whether by the facts deposed to in the affidavit which learned counsel says amount to estoppel, I would say that for the principle of estoppel to apply, it must be clear and certain from the transaction that the parties have entered into definite and distinct terms which have the purpose of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict right arising under a relationship will not be enforced. If there is no definite term that a right will be waived by virtue of certain considerations, the fact that such certain considerations arise to give rise to estoppel will be decided by evidence.... Since there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff/respondent received the items deposed to in final settlement of the suit No. W/61/2000, that issue becomes an issue of evidence." - Per Amaizu, J.C.A., in Otto v. Mabamije Suit No. CA/B/227/ 01; (2004) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 903) 489 at 504 - 505.

(3) "By section 151 of the Evidence Act, 1990 - "When one person has, by its declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing." - Per Amaizu, J.C.A., in Otto v. Mabamije Suit No. CA/B/227/01; (2004) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 903) 489 at 504.

(4) "In the case of Otto v. Mbamije (2004) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 903) pg. 489 at pg. 504, this Court held as follows:- "By virtue of section 151 of the Evidence Act, when one person by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceedings between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing." - Per Abdullahi, J.C.A., in Gov., Ekiti State v. Ojo Suit No. CA/IL/1/2005; (2006) 17 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1007) 95 at 119.

(5) "A good starting point is the case of Chief Ibibo O. Dokubo and Anor. v. Chief J. Omoni and 9 Ors. (1999) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 616) page 647 at 669, where the Supreme Court restated the meaning and effect of estoppels thus: "Estoppel per se is a doctrine of law but not a cause of action and no action can be founded upon it. If it is pleaded in an action in Court, it may, if it succeeds, affect the right of a party to proceed with the action and the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain the matter pleaded against it." - Per Dongban-Mensem, J.C.A., in Edward v. Kiri in Suit No. CA/PH/207/2001; (2006) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 962) 569 at 581.

(6) "In Odadhe v. Okujeni (1973) 11 S.C. 343 at page 353 the Supreme Court cited with approval the illuminating dictaper Coussay, J. A. in Basil v. Honger 14 W.A.G. 569 at page 572: - "Estoppel prohibits a party from proving anything which contradicts his previous acts or declarations to the prejudice of party who, relying on them has altered his position. It shuts the mouth of a party. The plea of Res Judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the Court." - Per Nsofor, J.C.A., in Eze v. Nwaubani Suit No. CA/PH/51/93; (2003) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 818) 50 at 66.

(7) "An estoppel as distinguished from res judicata, is an admission or something which the law views as equivalent to an admission. By its very nature it is so important, so conclusive that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it or adduce evidence to contradict it." - Per Nsofor, J.C.A., in Eze v. Nwaubani Suit No. CA/PH/51/93; (2003) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 818) 50 at 67 - 68.

(8) "Estoppel is afterwards a rule of evidence. It is a bar to testimony. Its main function is to place an obstacle in the way of a case which might otherwise succeed or to remove an impediment out of the way of a case which might otherwise fail." - Per Nsofor, J.C.A., in Eze v. Nwaubani Suit No. CA/PH/51/93; (2003) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 818) 50 at 70.

(9) "Defined as a disability, estoppel is whereby a party, is precluded from alleging or proving in legal proceedings, that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear, by the matter giving rise to that disability. It is often described as a rule of evidence, but the whole concept is more correctly viewed as a substantive rule of law. It is when one is concluded, and forbidden, in law to speak against his own act or deed, yea, though it be to say the truth. S.I.M.M. v. Anglo - American Telegraph Co. (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 188 C.A. at 202 per Biamwell, L.J." - Per Pemu, J.C.A., in Hein Nebelung Isensee K.G. v. U.B.A. Plc. Suit No. CA/L/343/2007; (2012) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1326) 357 at 385.

(10) "Estoppel is an admission or something that the law views as equivalent to an admission. By its very nature, it is so important, so conclusive, that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it, or adduce evidence to contradict it. Estoppel prohibits a party from providing anything that contradicts his previous acts or declarations to the prejudice of a party who, relying upon them, has altered his position. It shuts the mouth of a party - Bank of the North Ltd. v. Yau (2001) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 721) 408; Maya v. Oshuntokun (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 723) 62; Adone v. Ikebudu (2001) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 733) 385; Nikagbatse v. Opuye (2010) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1213) 50." - Per Abiru, J.C.A., in Unity Bank Plc v. Olatunji Suit No. CA/K/95/2011; (2013) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1378) 503 at 535 - 536.

(11) "It simply means that a person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and the opposite at another time. Estoppel binds both parties and privies and the rule of estoppel is based on equity and good conscience. Put in another way it means that a party is estopped from denying or withdrawing his previous assertion of from going back on his own act, even if it is to tell the truth. The reasoning is simple it would promote fraud and litigation if a party is allowed to resile from his own act or representation on which the other part acted. The object of estoppel has always been to prevent fraud and enthrone justice between the parties by ensuring that there is honesty and good faith at all times." - Per Rhodes-Vivour, J.C.A., in Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu Suit No. CA/PH/329/2005; (2008) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1067) 1 at 26.

(12) "My Lord, after the respondent wrote, and the bank (appellant) received exhibit D, informing the bank that the second signatory, Mr. Uzoma Onuoha is no longer a co-signatory to the account, the bank honoured the respondents cheque dated 8/7/ 97, signed only by the respondent. By this act the bank is estopped from subsequently dishonouring the respondents cheques. Exhibits E, F, G, and H also signed only by the respondent. Furthermore, the second signatory, Mr. Uzoma Onuoha never complained to the bank about the removal of his name as a co-signatory to the account. There was thus no dispute or disagreement between the co-signatories to the account. The excuse of incomplete mandate does not in the circumstances avail the bank from not honouring exhibits E...