Steve Evidence

INTRODUCTION
Doctrine of Estoppel is that it’s prohibits a person from giving false evidence by preventing
them from making contradicting statements in a Court of Law. The objective of this doctrine is
to avert the commission of fraud by one person against another person. This doctrine holds a
person accountable for false representations made by him, either through his words or through
his conduct.
For example, If TOM is an employee of company KEWIKA but in court, he denies to be an

employee of that company, then, later on he could not claim the salaries and emoluments from
that company.
The principle of estoppel issue is simply this: that where an issue of fact has been tried by a
competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused
such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to
the trial and conviction.
The application of the doctrine of estoppel in criminal cases in Tanzania is as follows:-
Pertaining to the proof of admissions against the persons making them, SARKAR, LAW OF
EVIDENCE,1 states as follows:
" An admission if clearly and unequivocally made is the best evidence against the party making
it It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof o f facts admitted and may be
explained or shown to be wrong, but they do not raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof
on the person making them unless shown or explained to be wrong they are an efficacious proof
if the facts admitted."
In the case of Nyerere Nyague v. Republic,2 The appellant was charged and convicted of
raping a 70 year old woman. At the trial, in his defence the appellant denied to have committed
the offence but admitted that he made a statement and had no objection to its admission. In cross-
examination by the prosecution, the appellant was recorded to have said:
1
16th Edition, 2007 Volume I at page 462
2
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2010 (unreported).
" I know the victim. I had carnai knowledge with heronce. I seduced her only once and I raped
her once."
The Court concluded that, the charge of rape was proved on account of the cautioned statement
of the appellant which was corroborated by his sworn evidence at the trial.
Also, case of Republic vs Halfan Hassan Bwire and 3 Others (Economic Case 16 of 2021)
[2021] TZHCCED 6680. On the doctrine of "issue estoppel' which is the third point of objection
they submitted that, the doctrine of "issue estoppel' is originally a civil law doctrine. However
via a decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Issa Athuman Tojo vs The
Republic, Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1996, CAT, (now reported as [2003] T.L.R 199), His
Lordship Samatta, CJ, at page 25-26 of unreported decision in particular held inter alia that, the
doctrine of "issue estoppel" is now part of our criminal law.
The application of the doctrine of estoppel in other matters and jurisdictions or country is
as follows :-
Where the Title of the landlord cannot be denied, In Moti Lal v. Yar Md,3 the judge said that
the tenant cannot say that the landlord has no more interest in the property when the landlord
filed a suit for default payment and ejectment. It is only after leaving the possession can the
holding of title by the landlord be questioned as mentioned
Also, in Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma,4 where defendant upon attaining a higher
post was allotted a premise by the railway company. In the case, it was said that even when it
was not known whether the land belonged to the railway company or not, the officer will have to
evacuate the premises after retirement.
Estoppel when applied to employees, In State of Maharashtra v. Anita,5 the court upheld that
once the person has been appointed as an employee under a contract and has accepted all its
3
A.I.R. 1925 All 275
4
A.I.R. 2002 SC 3294
5
A.I.R. 2016 SC 3333
terms and conditions, he would be estopped if in the later stage he challenges the term of the
appointment.
Estoppel when applied to Development Authority, In H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State

Financial Corporation,6 an inquiry officer was appointed with appellant’s consent. He
participated in the inquiry proceeding and cross-examined a number of witnesses and still found
nothing in favour of the appellant. The appellant could not question his appointment.
CONCLUSION
The Doctrine of estoppel is an important principle which protects people against fraud or
misrepresentation. This legal principle gives an incentive to every one of those people who tries
to make false representations to other and induces them to act upon it by planting their faith in
them, and incur losses as a result of such false representations, by not performing such acts, else
they would be held liable.
REFERENCES
BOOK
6
A.I.R. 2008 SC 244
SARKAR , (2007).LAW OF EVIDENCE, 16th Edition, 2007 Volume I at page 462
CASES
Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma, A.I.R. 2002 SC 3294
H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, A.I.R. 2008 SC 244
Moti Lal v. Yar Md., A.I.R. 1925 All 275
State of Maharashtra v. Anita, A.I.R. 2016 SC 3333
Republic vs Halfan Hassan Bwire and 3 Others (Economic Case 16 of 2021) [2021]
TZHCCED 6680.
Issa Athuman Tojo vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1996, CAT, (now reported as
[2003] T.L.R 199)
Nyerere Nyague v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2010 (unreported).

Steve Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steve Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steve Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION

For example, If TOM is an employee of company KEWIKA but in court, he denies to be an

The application of the doctrine of estoppel in criminal cases in Tanzania is as follows:-

Estoppel when applied to Development Authority, In H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State

Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma, A.I.R. 2002 SC 3294

H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, A.I.R. 2008 SC 244

Moti Lal v. Yar Md., A.I.R. 1925 All 275

State of Maharashtra v. Anita, A.I.R. 2016 SC 3333

Nyerere Nyague v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2010 (unreported).

You might also like