By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

MAUGHAM in maritime Elective C. Ltd General Diaries Ltd [1937] 1 All E.R 746at 753 GEORGES C.J. in Tarmal Industries Ltd, v, Commissioner of Customsand Excise [1968] E.A 471 and D.P.P. v. Mwita Marwa [1988] T.L.R 306 all to thesame effect. He then concluded .In the instant application therefore, Annexure(sic) D.1 was validly issued to set right theconstitutional breach perpetrated in Annextures A.And for my part, it matters not that this wasAfter the proceedings were commenced as I toldThat court proceedings cannot be used to compelAnyone to persist in defying the law. For theseReasons I am again of the view that estoppeldoes not avail itselfBriefly, that is the holding of the learned judge who is accused by the appellant ofglossing over estoppelAs to the third requirement of estoppel which the learned judge found not to havebeen satisfied the appellant submitted that the essential point made by Sarkar isthat estoppel is based on the change of position brought about by therepresentation or actions of a person bound by the estoppel . The appellantpointed out that he as rising his salary. That he had to release his official car hisresidential telephone had been disconnected and that his family had been setasunder, all because of his reliance on the presentation that Annex A was validMr. Mono remarked that these mattes had been raised by the appellant for thefirst time at this stage and he submitted that they shouldbe ignore., In allfairness to the appellant however he did mention termination of salary even atthe trial but the learned judge had said that was a development arising from thefact of his retiament and it occurred long before he filed the application. We377