CORAM

---

S. U. ONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. A. KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

I. C.ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

D. MUSDAPHER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

G.A. OGUNTADE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI A OLALEKAN

APPELLANTS 

---

WEMA BANK PLC

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONTRACT- ESTOPPEL

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, a customer of the Respondent Bank, placed the sum of N2,000.000.00 in a fixed deposit account with the Respondent. But the Respondent without instructions from the Appellant went ahead to de-fix the money and transfer same to other accounts of the Appellant with the Respondent to cover appellants’ indebtedness.

 

 

---

HELD

---

The Court held that the appeal lacked merit and that the lower court did not make findings contrary to the findings of the trial Court.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower court was right to make findings contrary to the findings of the trial court which were not appealed against.

 

2. Whether the lower court gave a proper consideration to the Appellants’ complaint on the issue of estoppel.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT

---

‘If a man by his words or conduct wilfully endeavours to cause another to believe in a certain state of things which the first knows to be false and if the second believes in such state of things and acts upon the belief, he who knowingly made the false statement is estopped from averring afterwards that such a state of things does not exist at the time; again. If a man either in express terms or by conduct, makes representation to another of the existence of a state of facts which he intends to be acted upon in a certain way, in the belief of the existence of such a state of facts, to the damage of him who so believed and acts, the first is estopped from denying the existence of such a state of facts. Thirdly, if a man whatever his real meaning may be, so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take his conduct to mean a certain representation of facts and that it was a true representation, and the latter was intended to act upon it in a particular way, and he with such belief, does act in that way to his damage, the first is estopped from denying the facts as represented’. Per S.U. Onu, JSC

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Areabold Egba & Ors. V. Chief Warri Ogudo & Ors. (2000) 6 S.C. Part 1

 

2. Joe Iga & Ors. V. Ezekiel Amakiri & Ors. (1976) 11 S.C. 1 at 12 – 13

 

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---