Estoppel: An Armour in Equity's Arsenal. A Discourse.

Just like the armour a belligerent soldier wears during the face of war to protect himself from attacks from the enemy side, so can estoppel be likened to that 'armour'. Just like warriors use their shields to prevent the onslaughts from their enemies, so also does estoppel act to defend a party. Estoppel acts to prevent or bar unscrupulous persons from taking advantage over a person who have been misled by a misrepresentation by these unscrupulous persons statements, actions or inactions. In Combe v Combe(1951) 1 All E.R 767, the House of Lords, per Lord Denning L.J, qualified it as a 'shield'.

According to the Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 629, it defined it as "a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said, or done before or what has been legally established". In Agbogunlori v Depo(2008)All FWLR(pt.408) at 255, the Supreme Court stated thus on estoppel:

 " Estoppel is that doctrine where a party is not allowed to say that a certain statement of fact is untrue whether in reality it is true or not. It is therefore a disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the matter giving rise to that disability" . The Court of Appeal in Asiru v Asiru & Ors(2013) LPELR-22675(CA), relied on the above definition for its ratio.

In Ehidimhen v Musa & Ors(2000) LPELR-1051(SC), the Supreme Court defined estoppel relying on Ukaegbu v Ugoji(1991) 6 NWLR (pt.196)127 at 143-144, thus: 

"... an admission, or something which the law views as equivalent to an admission. By its very nature, it is so important, so conclusive, that a party whom it affects is not allowed to plead against it, or adduce evidence to contradict it... Estoppel prohibits a party from proving anything which contradicts his previous acts or declarations to the prejudice of a party who relying upon them has altered his position"

With the foregoing definitions, it is suffice to say that the primal intention or purpose of 'estoppel' is to bar a party from asserting a claim or right that contradicts his previous acts or declarations if which the other party has relied to his prejudice. It is aimed at preventing a party from taking advantage of another after much reliance on the statement of the other and by so doing altered his position to his prejudice. It is one of equity's many weapons: an armour in its arsenal.

Nature of estoppel

Having appraised a little on the meaning of estoppel, it is germane and apropos, to highlight the nature of estoppel. In Gbadamosi & Ors v Bello & Ors(1985) LPELR-1314(SC), the Supreme Court, per Oputa J.S.C, gave a detailed explanation on the nature of estoppel in this regard:

" Estoppel is hardly a rule of what is called substantive law in the sense of declaring an immediate right or claim. It is rather a rule of evidence capable nonetheless on that account, of affecting gravely substantive rights. An estoppel is part of the law of evidence. It is no other than a bar to testimony. It's sole function is to place an obstacle in the way of a case which might otherwise succeed or to remove an impendiment out of the way of a case which might otherwise fail. Estoppel is thus a shield not a sword; its role is defensive not offensive. To use the language of naval warfare, an estoppel must always be either a mine layer or a mine sweeper; it can never be a capital unit. There is nothing like title by estoppel as an estoppel gives no title to that which is the subject matter of the estoppel. Estoppel is only a defense and not a cause of action" see also Simm v Anglo American Telegraph Co(1879) 5 Q.B.D 188; Combe v Combe(Supra).

From the foregoing espouse on the nature of estoppel by the Supreme Court's Justice, Oputa J.S.C, what can be highlighted or extrapolated from it is that an estoppel seeks to defend, bar and protect. But however, it can't be used as a sword or create a cause of action. It can only be raised in defence of an independent action.

Principle of Estoppel

In Ugwu v Ararume(2007) LPELR-3329(SC), per Tobi J.S.C, the Supreme Court held thus on the principle of estoppel:

       " The doctrine of estoppel cannot work in favour of parties who mutually give their consent or agree to an illegality. Estoppel an equitable principle, cannot condone illegality. It rather aids justice and fair play"

From the law stated hereabove, it points to the primary essence and purpose of equity: to supplement the hardship of draconian and unconscionable laws or principles for a less harsh, more accommodating, fairer one which portrays the tenets of justice. Estoppel as stated hereinabove, is one of the weapons of equity, and as equity stands to promote fairness and justice, so also would estoppel not condone illegality or anything antithetical to its principles of fairness and justice.

Elements of estoppel

Having gone thus far, it will be right to state the elements that make up estoppel. In Chukwuma v Ifeloye(2008) LPELR-862(SC), the Supreme Court per Ogbuagu, J.S.C, highlighted five essential elements:

1. That there was a false representation or concealment of material facts.

2. That the representation must have been known to be false by the party making it or the party must have been negligent in not knowing it's falsify.

3. That it was believed to be true by the person to whom it was made..

4. That the party making the representation must have intended that it be acted on or the person acting on it must have been justified in assuming it's intent, and

5. That the party asserting estoppel acted on the representation in a way that will result to substantial prejudice unless the claim of estoppel succeeds.

What constitutes estoppel

In Jacob Oyerogba & Anor v Egbewole Olaopa(1998) LPELR-2878(SC), the Supreme Court per Belgore J.S.C, explained on this regard:

" Where a person by words and or deeds or by conduct made to another a clear and unequivocal representation of a fact either with knowledge of it's falsehood or with intention that it should be acted upon or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man in his full faculties, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted upon, and that other person in fact acted upon that representation whereby his position was thereby altered to his detriment, an estoppel arises against that person who made the representation and he will not be allowed to aver that the representation is not what he presented to be"

Types of estoppel

It will be germane to categorically give the types of estoppel we have. The Court in plethora of cases have stated different types of estoppel. In Oyerogba v Olaopa(Supra), per Belgore J.S.C, the Supreme Court enunciated four types/kinds of estoppel, viz: 

" Estoppel by matter of records", "Estoppel by deed", "Estoppel in pais" and "Promissory Estoppel". In Madam Abusatu Agboguneri v Mr.John Depo &Ors(Supra), per Muhammad J.S.C, the Supreme Court stated there types of estoppel viz:

a) Estoppel by record or quasi by record

b) Estoppel by deed; and

c) Estoppel in pais.

Furthermore, in Omnia(Nig) Ltd v Dyktrade(2007)LPELR-2641(SC), per Muhammad J.S.C, he recognized three kinds of estoppel in common law namely: a) Estoppel by record or quasi by record, b) Estoppel by deed, and c) estoppel I pais. He went further to recognize two kinds of estoppel in equity:

a) Promissory Estoppel and b) Proprietary Estoppel.

 

In Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd(in liquidation) v Texas Commerce International Bank(1982) Q.B. 84, Goff J, at the High Court identified four namely:

a) Doctrine of acquiescence

b) Doctrine of encouragement— Ramsden v Dyson(1866) LR 1 HL 129

c) Promissory Estoppel— Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co.(1887) 2 App. Case 439; Central London Property Trust v High Trees House LTD(1946) 1 All ER 256 at 258.

d) Proprietary Estoppel.

In the appeal case, Lord Denning identified his also viz: 1) Proprietary Estoppel, 2) Estoppel by representation of fact, 3) Estoppel by acquiescence and 4) Promissory Estoppel.

Effect of estoppel

In Shona-Jason Ltd v Omega Air Ltd(2005) LPELR-6110(CA), the Court of Appeal held on the effect of estoppel thus:

" Where estoppel arises, it constitutes an admission of facts. By it's very conclusive nature, the party it affects is not allowed to adduce evidence against it".

In essence, when estoppel arises, it bars the party which it applies to from adducing evidence against it, to insist or claim his rights.

Conclusively from the foregoing, estoppel is a bar or 'shield' that prevents a party from deviating from an earlier representation or statement to another person on which the person relied on to his detriment or prejudice. Estoppel acts as a shield and it is used in defence rather than to stage a fight or create a cause of action. There are different kinds of estoppel both in Common Law and Equity. Estoppel acts as an armour and shield to prevent a party from being misled by another on a reliance of the other party's representation or statement.

© Amaefule, Uchechukwu Ernest.