ELIZABETH MABAMIJE V HANS WOLFGANG OTTO

CORAM

PARTIES

ELIZABETH MABAMIJE APPELLANTS

HANS WOLFGANG OTTO RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case of the Plaintiff was that Defendant breached his promise to marry her, and for that reason she claimed N20, 000.000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) as damages as well as an order to compel the Defendant to perfect/complete all marriage arrangements earlier made by him. The Defendant in his statement of defence denied the allegations and further stated that the Plaintiff in an earlier suit, also filed at the High Court, Warri claimed the same reliefs against him. The Defendant also asserted that following the intervention of OAN Overseas Agency (Nig.) Ltd, a company in which he was Managing Director, the said suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiff after that Company had fulfilled certain conditions which included; that OAN Overseas Agency (Nig.) Ltd should furnish the apartment of the Plaintiff with some named amenities and on the basis of which the Plaintiff discontinued with the earlier suit instituted against the Defendant was never denied and the Plaintiff did not file a Counter Affidavit to contravene the Affidavit in Support of the Motion to dismiss her suit on the ground of estoppel. The Defendant hence, raised the defence of estoppel, and also filed a motion on the ground that the Plaintiff should have been estopped from further litigating on the subject matter having been satisfied on same in an earlier claim. The trial high Court dismissed the Motion holding that the principle of estoppel has not been established. The Defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed and the court ruled that the Plaintiff was estopped from instituting the present suit. Aggrieved by that decision, the Plaintiff has appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. When the lower court decided the points of law said to be raised by the Defendant in proceedings in lieu of demurrer by relying in the statement of Defence and Affidavits To affirm whether the decisions of the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that estoppel was established upon the un-contradicted affidavit evidence before the trial court?

2. To affirm whether the decision of the learned judges were right when they held that the Respondents Notice to vary dated the 6th February 2002 was incompetent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS USED IN A STATUTE

“Where the words used in a statute are clear, they should be given their ordinary meaning, without any embellishments. See Tariola v Williams 1982 7SC p.27 Mobil v. F.B.I.R 1977 3 SC p.53.”

ESTOPPEL- MEANING OF ESTOPPEL

“Section 151 of the Evidence Act 1990, now Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on estoppel states that:
‘169. 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 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.
Estoppel is a rule that prevents a person to assert the contrary of a fact or state of things which he formally asserted by words or conduct. Put in another way, a person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and the opposite at another time. Estoppel is based on Equity and good conscience, the object being to prevent fraud and ensure justice between the parties by promoting transparency and good faith.”

AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE- STATUS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS IN AN AFFIDAVIT

“Where facts deposed to in an affidavit have not been controverted such facts must be taken as true except they are moonshine. See Alagbe v Abimhala 1978 2SC p39
Where an affidavit is filed, deposing to certain material facts and the other party does not file a counter-affidavit to dispute the facts, the facts deposed to in the affidavit would be deemed unchallenged and undisputed, Where there is a conflict in affidavit evidence on a crucial and material issue, a trial court is expected to invite parties to call oral evidence to resolve the conflict. See Akinsete v Akindutire (1966) 1 ANLR p. 147”

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS- WHAT CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS?

“It amounts to an abuse of process when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the annoyance of the other party. Proceedings that are not bonafide, that are frivolous vexatious, or oppressive. See Saraki v Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt. 264) p.156 Amaefule v State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 75) p.l56 Agwasim v Ojichie (2004)10 NWLR (pt. 882) p.613”

NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE – MEANING AND CONSEQUENCE OF A NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE

“A Notice of discontinuance is a voluntary termination of a suit by the Plaintiff or complainant When issues that gave rise to a suit are no longer in dispute, that is to say parties have settled. Terms of settlement are filed in court to bring the suit to an end. A Notice of discontinuance may in certain circumstances have the same effect as terms of settlement.”