"I agree entirely with my learned brother that the respondent having admitted in a previous suit that the land in dispute belongs to the appellant, is bound by that admission and estopped from contending otherwise. This is known as the rule of estopel by conduct. The equitable doctrine has been explained by this Court in a plethora of decisions. In Bank of the North Ltd. Vs Yau (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 721) 408; (2001) LPELR - 746 (SC) @ 37 B - E this Court held: "It is well accepted in our jurisprudence that where a person by words or conduct made to another a clear and unequivocal representation of a fact or facts either with knowledge of its falsehood, with intention that it should be acted upon, or has so conducted himself that another would, as a reasonable man in his full faculties, understand that a certain representation of fact was intended to be acted upon, and that other person in fact acted upon that representation whereby his position was thereby altered to his detriment, estoppel arises against the person who makes the representation and he will not be allowed to aver the contrary of what he presented it to be. See: Oyerogba vs Olaopa (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt.583) 509." In Ude Vs Nwara & Anor. (1993) LPELR - 3289 (SC) @ 27 A-B it was held: "By operation of the rule of estoppel a man is not allowed to blow hot and cold, to affirm at one time and deny at the other, or as it is said to approbate and reprobate. He cannot be allowed to mislead another person into believing a state of affairs and then turning round to say to that person's disadvantage that the state of affairs which he had presented does not exist at all or as represented by him." This principle has been embodied in Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011."

Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. IN GARKUWA PINA v. JAGABA MAI-ANGWA (2018) LPELR-44498(SC)