Rule preventing one from asserting or denying a fact’s existence because he has previously or earlier asserted or denied the opposite, distinguished from presumptions as it is procedural thus ought to be pleaded, evidence in respect of it ought to be led and apart from autre fois acquit and convict it doesn’t apply in criminal cases.
Can operate as conclusive presumptions in 6 main ways:
1. Estoppel in rem judicatam per In Re Asere Stool; Nikoi Olai Amontiain two species
1-cause of action existence estoppel
2-issue estoppel which preclusion from raising particular issues previously raised and adjudicated, admission is an e.g. of estoppel by conduct, per Cobblah v Okrakuestoppel judicatam won’t apply because party didn’t know of existence of suit nor evidence led to show that subject matter were the same, and not apply where parties are different as the previous decision may be used as evidence by one party who was party to previous case to prove possession or others,
Promissory Estoppel in Pais per Ankrah v Ankrah estoppel in pais is representation of fact made to one who wasn’t in position to know truth and acted on it to detriment,
Estoppel by election per Asia v Ayeduvor where one sold house as owner he can’t be heard to give evidence that house belonged to son, where one has option to choose between two inconsistent things can’t retract after choosing one,
Estoppel by conduct per In Re Finako that where D took devise by testator and sought to restrict P in his share in same devise on basis of being family property, they were estopped as the had accepted the testator’s power whilst alive by taking possession of devise given them by said instrument; and
Estoppel by written instrument per Ampim II v Bediako basic facts recited in written instrument presumed conclusively to bind parties or their successors in interest, allunder S 26-29 on presumptions-supra.
Per In Re Suhyen Stool; Wiredu v Agyei Ocran JSC though S 26-29 of Act 323 are instances of estoppel, estoppel isn’t synonymous with conclusive presumption though both bring about the same legal effect, existence or non-existence of estoppel is hard to tell unless after trial, merely occupying stool as caretaker didn’t establish estoppel in pais to restrain party entitled from asserting rightby conduct of not speaking out whenit was his duty to.
Laches & Acquiescence: to establish acquiescence under equity and customary law, four conditions 1-person enters land in honest but erroneous belief of right 2-spent money in developing 3-owner aware of entry and mistaken belief 4-owner fraudulently encourages said development