Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1972]

Key Points of the Case:

• Background: This case involved a dispute concerning the doctrine of promissory estoppel (PE), rather than proprietary estoppel.

• Claim: The claimant argued that they should be estopped from denying a promise based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on a promise when the other party has relied on it to their detriment.

• Outcome: The court reaffirmed that promissory estoppel requires a clear and unequivocal promise to be established.

• Reasoning: The case emphasised that for promissory estoppel to apply, there must be a definite and clear promise made by one party that the other party has reasonably relied upon. Ambiguities or uncertainties in the promise would undermine the claim.

• Comparison with Proprietary Estoppel: Lord Scott in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row characterised proprietary estoppel as a sub-species of promissory estoppel. This means that while proprietary estoppel deals with property rights and assurances related to land, it also depends on the same principles of a clear and unequivocal promise as in promissory estoppel.

• Impact: This case reinforced the principle that for estoppel to apply, whether promissory or proprietary, the promise must be explicit and certain. This aligns with the view that proprietary estoppel is governed by similar requirements as those found in promissory estoppel.