PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Under the modern practice, it is not necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matters constituting the estoppel are stated in such a manner to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or an answer.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Idigbe, JSC (as adopted) Ito & Ors v. Ekpe & Ors (2000) NLC-61993(SC) at p. 27; Paras. A–B.
"Under the modern practice, it is not however, necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matters constituting the estoppel are stated in such a manner to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or an answer."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This principle adopts a substance-over-form approach to pleading estoppel. A party need not use the word “estoppel” or adhere to any technical formula. The test is whether the facts pleaded—such as a prior representation, act, or judicial determination—sufficiently show that the party relies on estoppel as a defence or answer. This aligns with modern pleading rules requiring concise statements of material facts, not legal labels. It prevents justice from being defeated on technical grounds where the substantive facts constituting estoppel are clearly pleaded.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE