By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

E.A.304, at p.313. On such facts equity will intervene to estop the maker of therepresentation from denying the truth of it.Does the applicant’s case disclose the three elements as just set out? It is notdisputed that the government made a tacit declaration to him that he had beenretired in the public interest. There can be no doubt, either, that the declarationwas made with the intention that it should be acted upon by him. Two of the threeelements are thus established. I think, however, that a problem arises with and tothe third element, namely, whether the applicant actel upon the declaration to hisdetriment by reason of government action in withdrawing Annoxture “A”. Theapplicant claimed that he acted on the declaration by filing the application and, if Iunderstood his injection at one stap, that he suffered loss by way of terminatedsalaries.I think this is all interesting. I say so because, in the first place, it cannot be sailthat when he filed the application that he did so by way of acting one thedeclaration in actual fact he did so to dispute it. He was aggrieved by it, heconsidered it illegal, he dsired it quashed. It think I am correct in saying thatwhom the statute proides and the courts lay down that the declaration should beactel upon they mean to say that it should be taken advantage of. In the casebefore no the applicant did not seek to take advantage of the declaration rather,he wished that it was never made and took steps to set it aside. If I am correct inthis view, and I think I am, it means that the applicant has never acted upon the474