By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

the whole field of the law relating to evidence, and stoppel being a matter ofevidence, no estoppel could arise unless it was brought within the ambit of S.115. By parity of reasoning, whoever seeks to plead estoppel must be able tojustiofy the plea in the context of S.123 of our evidence Act. The import of s.115of the Indian statute was discussed by the Privy Council in Sarat Chunder Dey V.gopal C. Under lara (1892), 19 I.A.203 where lord shand had this to say (at P.215).What the law and the Indian statute mainly regard is the position of the personwho was induced to act; and the principle on which the law and the statute restis, that it would be most inequitable and unjust to him that if another, by arepresentation made, or by conduct amounting to a representation, has inducedhim to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made therepresentation should be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his formerstatement, to the less and injury of the person who acted on it.As can be gathered from this passage, stoppel is constituted by three essentialelements: first, a tacit representation by one person to another: secondly, anintention that the representation should be acted upon by that other person:thirdly, action by that other person to his detriment should the make of therepresentation seek to repudiate it. See also country Automobiles Ltd. V.hutchings biemer Ltd (1965).473