Doctrine of estoppel entail when one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement or 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 him nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.
What is doctrine of estoppel
In Evans vs. Bartham, Lord Wright defined estoppel as a “a rule of evidence that prevents the party estopped from denying the existence of a fact”.
The Nigerian Supreme Court in Koiki vs. Magnut Son and Adone vs. Ikebudu defined the term as:
“An admission or something which the law views equivalent to an admission. By its very nature, it is so important, conclusive, that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it, or adduce evidence to contradict it. It prohibits a party from proving anything which contradicts his previous acts or declaration to the prejudice of the party, who relying upon them, has altered his position. There must be some previous act, omission or declaration intentionally made by a person which caused or permitted the other person to believe to be true and upon which the latter acted to his detriment.
From the provision of section 169 which is an improvement on section 151 of the repealed Act, the meaning of estoppel is also inferable. It provided that “when one person has either by virtue of an existing court judgment, deed or agreement or by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and act upon such believe, neither he nor his representative in interest shall be allowed, in any proceeding between himself and such person or such person’s representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing”.
Simply put, estoppel is a rule whereby a party is precluded from denying the existence of some state of facts which he has previously asserted.
The rationale for this doctrine was well articulated in the old case of Cave vs. Mills as followes:
‘A man shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold-to affirm at one time and deny at another – making a claim on those whom he has deluded to their disadvantages, founding that claim on the very matters of the delusion. Such a principle has its basis on common sense and common justice, and whether it is called “estoppel” or by any other name, it is one which courts of law have in modern times most usefully adopted’.
While the above definitions represent what is meant by the term, estoppel, a close examination of that offered by Lord wright, provokes a very important question, namely; whether estoppel is really a rule of evidence. \opinions differ as to the true nature of estoppel. views have been expressed that estoppel is a rule of evidence; others maintain that it is a rule of substantive law or formal irrebuttable presumption. Yet, another view opines that it is a matter of pleadings. what, therefore, is the true nature of estoppel?
This question can be summarily disposed of by stating that estoppel can be rightly regarded as:
- Estoppel as a rule of evidence
- estoppel as a rule of substantive law
- Estoppel as a matter ofpleading
- Estoppel as a formal irrebuttable presumption of law
Although estoppel cannot be made a basis of an action in court by a plaintiff, a defendant can however predicate his defense exclusively on it and it is for this reason that estoppel has been and can appropriately be viewed as a rule of substantive law under the Doctrine of estoppel. In Ojevwedie V. Echanokpe the Supreme Court stated as follows “although the plea of estoppel is a shield for the protector of a defendant, it can validly be employed as a sword by the plaintiff Udo V. Obot.
Elements of estoppel
- estoppel by recods
- estoppel by agreement
- estoppel by conducts
- estoppel by deed
Estoppel by records
Estoppel by record also known as action estoppel and issue estoppel when it provides that:
“Every judgment is conclusive proof, as against parties and privies, of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided by the court, and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based; unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the judgment was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgment is intended to be proved“.
However, estoppel by records is the most popular among the four classifications. It is estoppel which results from the judgment of a court. This is why it is also referred to as estoppel by judgement.
Estoppel in contract law
The rationale for this doctrine was well articulated in the old case of Cave vs Mills as follows:
“A man shall not allowed to blow hot and cold-to affirm at one time and deny at another – making a claim on those whom he has deluded to their disadvantage, founding that claim on the very matters of the delusion. Such a principle has its basis on common sense and common justice, and whether it is called “estoppel” or by any other name, it is one which courts of law have in modern times most usefully adopted“.
In Evans vs Bartham, Lord Wright defined estoppel as : a rule of evidence that prevents the party estopped from denying the existence of a fact”. The Nigerian Supreme Court in Koiki vs Magnut Son and Adone vs Ikebudu defined the term as:
” An admission or something which the law views equivalent to an admission. By its very nature, it is so important, conclusive, that the party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it, or adduce evidence to contradict it. It prohibits a party from proving anything which contradicts his previous acts or declaration to the prejudice of the party, who relying upon them, has altered his position. There must be some previous act, omission or declaration intentionally made by a person which caused or permitted the other person to believe to be true and upon which the latter acted to his detriment.
Doctrine of estoppel by deed
This estoppel is to the effect that a party who executed deed will be estopped by the court from saying that facts stated therein are not true. In Bowman vs. Taylor, it was held that “if a party has by his deed directly asserted a specific fact, it is impossible to say that he shall not be precluded from disputing that fact”.
The nature of estoppel by deed was articulated by Lord Mauham in Greer vs. kettle when he declared that:
‘estoppel by deed is a rule of evidence founded on the principles that solemn and unambiguous statement or engagement in a deed must be taken as binding between the parties and privies and therefore as not admitting any contradictory proof’.
In the repealed Act, estoppel by deed is not provided for in the extant Act, there is no doubting the fact that it is applicable here even as in England. There are a number of conditions which must be satisfied before this estoppel can arise:
- The estoppel applies only to litigation arising on the deed and does not apply to actions on collateral matter or ancillary matters.
- The deed must be valid in law. Accordingly, a deed which is invalid either by reason of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation or other illegality cannot raise any estoppel in favour of the party guilty of the fraud or illegality.
- As in the case of estoppel by record, estoppel by deed must be confined to the parties to the deed. and to statements in the deed which are material in the transaction and which are clear and unambiguous.
Doctrine of waiver and estoppel
Section 172 of the Act
“Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee or endorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods to have been shipped on board a vessel, is conclusive proof of that shipment as against the master or other person signing the same, notwithstanding that some goods or some part of them may not have been so shipped, unless such holder of the bill of lading had actual notice at the time of receiving the same that the goods had not been in fact laden on board”.
Doctrine of estoppel End.
