CORAM

---

ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OKAY ACHIKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL OLAYINKA AYOOLA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

---

PARTIES

---

BANK OF THE NORTH LTD. APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant gave notice of dishonour of the cheques to the respondent after one year but the respondent had written letters asking the appellant to treat the value of the dishonoured cheques as a debt and offered payment plan.

---

HELD

---

The court allowed the appeal. The court held that though the length of time was unreasonable, the respondent waived the right and was stopped from denying his indebtedness under the dishonoured cheques.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the issue of the “dishonour and subsequent loss” of the five cheques has been specifically pleaded.

2. Whether by his conduct both passive and active the respondent has not waived his rights under sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Bills of Exchange Act Cap. 15 of the Laws of the Federation 1990 and whether the respondent is estopped from denying such waiver.

3. Whether the learned Court of Appeal Justices ought not to have come to the same conclusion as the learned trial Judge that the respondent is in law estopped from denying liability in the sum claimed having regard to the several unequivocal written admissions of liability made by the respondent himself and his counsel.”

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

NATURE AND ESSENCE OF ESTOPPEL BY CONTACT

---

It will be inequitable for anyone, such as the respondent herein to enjoy the liberty of making statements by himself or through his accredited agents or representatives, which having been acted upon by another to his detriment in the belief that the statements were true, is thereafter allowed to renege from such statements. The law has accorded reasonable protection to unsuspecting members of society who are misled by such statements because the maker thereof is absolutely stopped to contradict or deny the truth of such statements. – Achilke J.S.C

---

DISHONOURED CHEQUE – REASONABLE TIME TO GIVE NOTICE

---

Time is of the utmost importance in relation to giving notice of dishonour. There is no hard and fast rule in this matter save that it is common ground that what constitutes a reasonable time is a question of fact dependent upon the circumstances of the case. A delay in giving notice extending for a period of nearly one year, without any satisfactory explanation, as earlier observed, cannot be but unreasonable- Achike J.S.C.

---

WAIVER – HOW IMPLIED

---

Waiver may be implied from conduct that is inconsistent with the continuance of the right. – Achike J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Peacock v. Purssell (1863) 32 LJCP 266 at 267
2. Lombard Banking Ltd. v. Central Garage & Engineering Co. Ltd. (1963) 1KB 220
3. Yoye v. Olubode & Ors. (1974) 9 NSCC 409

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. The Bills of Exchange Act
2. The Evidence Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT