By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

declaration except in a negative some. Further, it is not the act of filing theapplication that led to the applicant being denied his salaries. That was adevelopment arising from the fact of his retirement and it occurred long before hefiled the application. In my view of the matter as a whole, the applicant has neveracted on Annexture “A” as by statute contemplated and has never suffered lessor injury by reason of its withdrawal. Ironically, it may woll be that he couldprobably to said to have actop on the document if he had proceeded to draw thepension promised therein, and might be said to have suffered loss if Annoxturo“DI” were construed as terminating that pension. I am otherwise of the view thateven at this juncture stoppel does not avail itself.There is yet another dimension to this subject. It was submitted by Mr. Mono, andrightly so, that stoppel does not lie against a statute. Where the law enjoins theperformance of a duty and even proscribes the made of its performance,ostoppel cannot be invoked to prevent its performance or its performance in themanner prescribed. It is also settle that estoppe cannot be invoked to prevent thecorrection of errors in the performance of a statutory duty. I am grateful to Mr.Mono for drawing attention to a relevant passage in the Third Edition of Sarkar’slaw of Evidence, at p. 1140, which I desire to cite.Where a statute requires a particular formality, no stoppel will cure the defect. Aparty’s opinion as to the legal effect of certain facts does not create an estoppel.475