Background
The respondent (Owners of M.T. Venturer) commenced suit No. FHC/L/CS/1405/98 in the Federal High Court, Lagos, claiming US$886,616.42 with 21% interest per annum from the date of institution. The appellants (NNPC and Pipelines & Production Marketing Company Ltd) filed a statement of defence and a notice of preliminary objection, contending the suit was statute-barred. The respondent did not file a counter-affidavit; instead it sought an adjournment to await a ruling in a sister case (FHC/L/CS/292/98) pending before Justice Sanyaolu on a similar preliminary objection.
Despite the appellants’ objection, the trial Chief Judge ordered that proceedings be stayed pending Justice Sanyaolu’s decision. That ruling was delivered on 5 November 2003, dismissing the suit as statute-barred. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal Lagos (CA/L/679/2009), which on 19 July 2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s dismissal. The appellants then brought this appeal to the Supreme Court by amended notice of appeal filed 7 November 2024 (deemed 10 December 2024).
Issues
The Supreme Court framed four issues for determination:
- In the absence of an appeal against the trial court’s finding (5 November 2003) that the respondent elected to be bound by Justice Sanyaolu’s decision, was the Court of Appeal entitled to review and overrule that finding? (Grounds 4 & 5)
- Did the ruling of 16 November 2001, binding the parties to Sanyaolu’s decision, constitute issue estoppel when not appealed? (Ground 3)
- Was it permissible for the respondent to approbate and reprobate in its procedural stance at trial and appeal? (Grounds 1 & 2)
- Did the trial court breach the respondent’s right to fair hearing in delivering its 5 November 2003 ruling? (Grounds 6–8)
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court’s decision rested on three core legal principles:
- Scope of Notice of Appeal: An appellate court cannot consider complaints not contained in the notice of appeal. Grounds not appealed are deemed admitted and binding.
- Estoppel in Pais (Equitable Estoppel): A party who, by words or conduct, leads another to adopt a position and acts upon it cannot later adopt a contrary stance. Failure to appeal an estoppel finding leaves it intact.
- Consistency Rule: Litigants must maintain a consistent position at trial and on appeal. They cannot deliberately adopt conflicting procedural stances (“approbate and reprobate”).
Court Findings
Delivering the leading judgment, Justice Adah found:
- The notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal did not challenge the trial court’s estoppel finding. Hence, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to revisit or overturn that finding.
- The respondent, having requested and relied on a stay to await Justice Sanyaolu’s ruling, was estopped from denying the binding effect of that ruling. The trial court correctly applied estoppel in pais.
- The principle of estoppel prevented the respondent from switching positions after an adverse decision. A litigant cannot blow hot and cold.
- The trial court’s adjournment to await the sister-case ruling did not breach fair hearing: both parties were heard on the adjournment application, and the respondent cannot complain of a process it requested.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 July 2013 and affirmed the trial Federal High Court’s ruling of 5 November 2003 dismissing the respondent’s suit as statute-barred. Each party bears its own costs.
Significance
This landmark decision clarifies that:
- Appellate courts are confined to issues raised in the notice of appeal.
- Estoppel in pais binds litigants and courts unless successfully appealed, reinforcing equitable certainty.
- Parties must adopt a consistent procedural stance; abrupt reversals of position will be denied under the consistency rule.
- Requests for procedural adjournments, if granted, cannot later be characterized as unfair.