Estoppel (72)
HELD:
"Under section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979, it is to courts and not to non-judicial bodies that judicial powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are vested.
HELD:
"Now for an estoppel to be established whatever determination is made in the first proceedings must be the same question arising in the latter proceedings.
HELD:
"...If a counsel or party, treats a document, or procedure or matter, as admissible, or regular etc, then he cannot be heard or be at liberty, to object or complain later or before an Appellate Court.
HELD:
"It is settled law that the ingredients of the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicata are as follows:- (a) the parties; (b) the issues; and (c) the subject matter in the previous action were the same as those in the action in which the plea is raised.
HELD:
"The condition for the application of issue estoppel are that: (a) the same question was decided in both proceedings; (b) the judicial decision said to create the estoppel is final; and (c) the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same as the parties or their privies to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised.
HELD:
"The doctrine of issue estoppel is that where an issue has been decided by a competent court the court will not allow it to be relitigated by different parties. The rule of estoppels is a rule of evidence and the matters which will found an issue estoppel may be of law, fact, or mixed law and fact. Issue estoppel applies only to issues. The issue of the 2nd respondents HND certificate was laid to rest in AD v. Fayose (2004) AFWLR (Pt. 222) p.1719." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC) Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. (P. 116, paras. B-D)
FACTS:
"It is a well settled principle of the English common law applicable in this country that where a person by his conduct represented to another of the existence of a state of affairs and has induced such other person to act in reliance thereof, he will be bound by the fair inference to be drawn from his word or conduct". FRANCIS ANAEZE v. UDE ANYASO(1993) LPELR-480(SC)PER WALI, J.S.C. (Pp. 42-43, Paras. G-A)
"I need to further remind the defendant that Section 151 of the Evidence Act clearly incorporates the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In Ude v. Nwara & Anr. (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 278) 638 at 662, this court pronounced that by operation of the rule of estoppel a man is not allowed to blow hot and cold, to affirm at one time and deny at the other, or, as it said to approbate- and reprobate.
"The doctrine of estoppel by conduct, though a common law principle has been enacted into Nigerian body of laws particularly our Law of Evidence. By virtue of Section 151 of the Evidence Act, when one person has 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 persons representative in interest, to deny the truth of that thing.
"The law is that any party relying on estoppel must specifically plead it." PER OGUNDARE, J.S.C. (P.49, Para.E) EZEBILO ABISI & ORS. V. VINCENT EKWEALOR & ANOR(1993) LPELR-44(SC)
