PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Any party relying on estoppel must specifically plead it; it is wrong for a court to raise and decide an issue of estoppel, such as estoppel by conduct, suo motu where it was not pleaded or made part of the case by the parties.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ogundare, JSC, in Ezebilo Abisi & Ors. v. Vincent Ekwealor & Anor (1993) NLC-1031990(SC) at pp. 39–40; Paras A–C.
"The law is that any party relying on estoppel must specifically plead it. It is wrong for a court to raise and decide an issue of estoppel, such as estoppel by conduct, suo motu where it was not pleaded or made part of the case by the parties."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Estoppel is a specific defense requiring detailed pleading of: (1) the representation made; (2) reliance thereon; (3) detriment suffered; (4) why the representor should be estopped. Courts cannot raise estoppel sua sponte (on their own motion) because: (1) parties must know the case they face; (2) the party allegedly estopped needs opportunity to respond; (3) estoppel requires specific factual findings that must be pleaded and proved. Deciding estoppel without pleading violates fair hearing—the affected party had no notice and no opportunity to rebut. Courts must confine decisions to issues raised by parties’ pleadings. This principle applies to all forms of estoppel (representation, conduct, promissory). Sua sponte estoppel findings constitute reversible error.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE