By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

agree with the learned judge and the same could be said of the other detrimentalmeasure. But apart from that we wonder whether those measures would nothave been taken evenunder Annex D. As a matter of fact the measuresincluding threatened eviction from his (appellant’s) official residence persistedand hence his application for an order of a stay of execution before MAPIGANOAg. J.A. We asked the appellant if he had been originally issued with Annex D.1his position would have been different. His answer was that if Annex D.1 hadbeen given to him first he would have only surrendered the functions of a judgebut not the benefits for he would have remained a public servant. We shall dealwith this point when we consider the cross-appealJust as was the learned Judge we are satisfied that the third requirementessential for estoppels to take effect does not existThe appellant concede that estoppels does not lie against a stature but quick toadd that is so only in a proper case. He went on to say that estoppels cannot beinvoked to stop the performance or the performance in a prescribed mannerwhere a law enjoins performance of a duty and prescribes the mode of itsperformance. He stated that it was a matter of having or not having jurisdiction ofcompetence or incompetence on the part of the one purporting to perform thestatutory duty. He submitted that where the performer has jurisdiction thenestoppel cannot apply. However where the performer lacks jurisdiction thenestoppel can be invoked. The appellant contended that in this case the presidentwas bound by the advice of the commission and could not alter it as evidencedby the two differing letters: Annexes A and D.1378