Doctrine of Estoppel: Definition, Types & Legal Principles
1. What Is Estoppel?
1.1 Overview
Estoppel prevents someone from denying or contradicting what they have previously said or done, especially if another person relied on that representation to their detriment. This rule ensures fairness by enforcing consistency in statements and conduct.
A man should not be allowed to contradict, by his words or conduct, what he has previously asserted, and this principle is known as estoppel.
Estoppel is based on the principle that it would be most inequitable and unjust that if one person by a representation made, has induced another to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation should not be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his former statement to the loss and injury of the person who acted on it.
According to Bentham, Stephen, Taylor: “the doctrine of estoppels is based on equitable doctrine, and is a rule of exclusion, which appeals that if a person has by act or omission altered his position, he will be estopped and he is precluded or debarred from denying it or take a position, so as to alter his position to the detriment of the other person, the opposite party."
1.2 Interpretation of the Term “Estoppel”
The term estoppel, derived from the Norman French word “estouper” meaning “to stop up,” refers to a legal principle that bars a person from denying the truth of a statement they have previously made, or from disputing facts they have earlier asserted to exist. As defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law, it is “a rule of evidence or a rule of law that prevents a person from denying the truth of a statement he has made or from denying the existence of facts that he has alleged to exist.”
Meaning and Origin of Estoppel
The word estoppel is of ancient English origin, derived from the Old French term “estoupail”, meaning “to stop” or “to hinder.” Over time, jurists and legal scholars have defined estoppel in various ways, but its core essence remains consistent: a person should not be permitted, whether by words or conduct, to contradict what they have previously affirmed.
For a matter to fall within the ambit of the law of estoppel, certain essential elements must be present and specific conditions must be fulfilled, ensuring that the doctrine is applied fairly and in accordance with legal principles.
1.4 Legal Definitions
- Black’s Law Dictionary: “A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before.”
- Halsbury’s Laws of England: “A disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear.”
- Article 114, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Evidence Act): “When someone has, by words or conduct, caused another to believe something and act upon that belief, neither they nor their representative shall be allowed to deny the truth of that thing.”
- Justice Munir: Estoppel is a rule of evidence whereby a person is prevented from denying or asserting a fact contrary to his previous statements.
- Phipson: An estoppel is a rule whereby a party is precluded from denying the existence of some state of facts which he has previously asserted”.
- Case Law 2021 MLD 837: Estoppel is a doctrine of law that precludes a person from denying the truth of a statement formally made by him.
1.5 Illustrative Cases of Legal Estoppel
Example 1: Suppose A knowingly and falsely represents to B that a certain piece of land belongs to A, thereby inducing B to purchase and pay for it. Later, the land genuinely comes into A’s ownership, and A attempts to cancel the sale by claiming that he had no title at the time of the transaction. In such a case, the doctrine of estoppel prevents A from denying his earlier representation and invalidating the sale.
Example 2: If a person deliberately fails to take legal action to evict an unlawful occupant within the statutory limitation period, they lose the right to recover possession thereafter. The court will apply legal estoppel, preventing any claim beyond the limitation period (PLD 2021 Lahore 429).
1.5 Relevant Legal Provisions on Estoppel
The doctrine of estoppel is recognized in many common law jurisdictions, though its codification and scope vary by country. The following statutory and common law provisions are particularly relevant:
- Pakistan – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Articles 54 to 58 (general rules of evidence) and Articles 114 to 116 (estoppel and related presumptions).
- India – Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 115 to 117, which define and regulate estoppel in contractual and property contexts.
-
United Kingdom: Although there is no single statutory
provision for estoppel, it is firmly established in
English common law. Key case law includes:
- Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 – established the modern doctrine of promissory estoppel.
- Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129 – a landmark case on proprietary estoppel.
-
United States: Estoppel operates largely under state
common law, with variations such as:
- Equitable estoppel – prevents a party from taking a legal position inconsistent with previous conduct when injustice would result.
- Promissory estoppel – codified in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90, requiring reliance on a promise to avoid injustice.
Across these jurisdictions, the doctrine serves a common purpose: to prevent unfairness by holding parties accountable to their prior statements, conduct, or promises when others have relied upon them.
1.6 Essential Elements of Estoppel:
- (i) Representation: There must be a representation by a person or his authorised agent to another in any form, declaration, act or omission.
- (ii) Representation of Existence of Facts:The representation must have been of the existence of facts and not promises or intention which might or not be enforceable in contract.
- (iii) Belief By the Other Party:There must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth.
- (iv) Intention: The representation must have been meant to be relied upon.
- (v) Action on Belief: There must have been action on the faith of the declaration, act or omission by the other party.
- (vi) Unawareness of True State of Things: The person claiming the relief of an Estoppel must show that he was not aware of the true state of things.
- (i) a representation by a person to another,
- (ii) the other should have acted upon that representation, and
- (iii) such action should have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the representation has been made
PLEA OF ESTOPPEL:
Only the person to whom representation was made for when it was designed can avail himself of it. A person is entitled to plead estoppel in his own individual character and not as a representative or his assignee.
I've explained 'Presumptions of Law and Fact' in detail. You may find that helpful.
2. Types of Estoppel
Sir Edward Coke, an eminent English jurist, originally classified estoppel into three main categories. However, modern legal systems recognize several additional types. The key kinds of estoppel are:
- Estoppel by Matter of Record or Judgment: Prevents a party from disputing facts or rights that have been conclusively established by a final court judgment.
- Estoppel by Deed: Bars a person from denying the truth of statements or facts asserted in a formal deed executed between parties.
- Estoppel by Matter in Pais (or Conduct): Prevents a party from contradicting their own conduct or statements when another has relied upon them to their detriment.
- Estoppel by Representation: Arises when one person’s false representation induces another to act upon it, and it would be unjust to allow the representor to later deny it.
- Estoppel by Waiver: Occurs when a party voluntarily relinquishes a known right, thereby preventing them from later asserting that right.
- Estoppel by Acquiescence: Applies when a party remains silent or inactive despite knowing their rights are being infringed, leading the other party to believe they consent.
- Promissory Estoppel: Prevents a party from going back on a promise, even without formal consideration, when the other party has relied upon that promise to their detriment.
While Coke’s classification laid the historical foundation, the evolution of common law and equity has expanded the scope of estoppel to address various scenarios where fairness and consistency demand that a person be bound by their words, deeds, or omissions.
2.1 Estoppel By Record or Judgment:
If the court has passed judgment about some dispute between parties after a complete hearing of both parties or their representatives shall remain bound to such judgment and no litigation shall be instituted in future about the same dispute between these parties. in other words Where a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a judicial tribunal of competent Jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of the litigation, any party or privy to such litigation or any person, in the case of decision in rem is estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing or questioning such decision on the merits.
Issue Estoppel:
Issue estoppel represents an extension of the doctrine of res judicata to include a bar on Subsequent litigation not only of all decided issues whose resolution was essential to the determination of earlier proceedings, but also to every Point which properly belongs to the Subject of litigation.
2.2 Estoppel By Deed:
In England: Parties to a duly executed and valid deed are precluded from disputing its force, effect, or the truth of its recitals. The solemn nature of the deed prevents them from contradicting their own formal undertaking.
In Pakistan: The strict common law doctrine of estoppel by deed is not fully recognized, as a deed under seal is not given any special status beyond that of a simple contract under current Pakistani law.
In India: While the concept of a deed under seal in the traditional English sense is not prevalent, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (particularly Sections 91 and 92) and principles under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 effectively prevent parties from contradicting the terms and recitals of a registered instrument such as a sale deed or gift deed. Indian courts have consistently held that once a registered deed is executed, its executants are estopped from denying its contents, except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality.
Exceptions to the Estoppel By Deed:
- (a) Not bind the third party: it only binds the parties and privies and not the third party to the deed.
- (b) Not apply to collateral matters: It is applicable only in actions on the deed. It does not apply to actions on collateral matters, even between the same parties.
- (c) Where Deed is obtained by fraud: There is no estoppel where the deed is obtained by fraud or illegality.
- (d) Estoppel not extends to description: The estoppel does not extend to the description or immaterial part of the deed, e.g, the date of the document, the quantity or nature of land etc.
- (e) Deed which can take effect by interest: A deed which can take effect by interest shall not be construed to take effect by estoppel.
2.3 Estoppel By Conduct
- (i) A contract or agreement
- (ii) Apart from contract, e.g., misrepresentation, negligence etc.
When a person admits any incident is true and makes such admission through conduct, attitude, act or character shall be prohibited from deviating from such admission.
The party is estopped by his own conduct if he knowingly allows any person to cause damage to his right leading to inference that such happening was in true direction. [2021 PLD 429 LAHORE]Basis of Article 114 or Estoppel By Conduct:
2.4 Estoppel by Representation
Estoppel by representation arises when a person, through words or conduct, makes a statement that affirms, denies, or describes an existing fact, and another person relies upon that statement to their detriment. Once such reliance occurs, the party making the representation is legally barred from later denying its truth.
Example: If a property owner tells a tenant that they may continue to occupy the premises for the next five years without any rent increase, and the tenant spends money renovating the property in reliance on that assurance, the owner cannot later claim that no such assurance was given.
2.5 Estoppel by Waiver
Estoppel by waiver occurs when a person voluntarily abandons a known, non-vested right, either through an express declaration or by conduct indicating such abandonment. If they later attempt to assert that right, the law prevents them from doing so.
If someone is fully aware of the violation of a personal legal right but chooses to remain silent and takes no action to protect it, the law treats this as an implied waiver of that right.
Example: A landlord, aware that a tenant has made structural alterations without permission, says nothing for months. Later, the landlord cannot suddenly object and demand immediate restoration if the silence caused the tenant to believe they had tacit approval.
[2002 CLC 166]
2.6 Acquiescence and Estoppel
Acquiescence is a specific form of estoppel. It occurs when a person, aware of their legal rights, watches another act under a mistaken understanding of those rights and fails to object within a reasonable time. This silence or inaction allows the other party to believe their actions are permitted, and if they suffer prejudice as a result, estoppel may arise.
Example 1: If a neighbor builds a wall slightly over the boundary line and the adjoining landowner, fully aware of the encroachment, does not object until construction is complete, they may be estopped from later demanding its removal.
Example 2: If a party is warned about defects (“dents”) in their tender documents, participates in the bidding process without raising objections, and later faces an adverse decision, they cannot change their stance to challenge the process.
[2022 CLC 873]; [2021 YLR 2337]
2.7 Promissory Estoppel
Promissory estoppel applies when a party makes a clear promise, even without formal consideration, and another party reasonably relies on that promise to their detriment. In such cases, the promisor is barred from acting contrary to their promise if doing so would cause injustice.
In the public law context, when government-controlled authorities make a promise that creates a legitimate expectation, and a citizen relies on it, the authorities cannot later act in a manner that defeats that expectation without lawful justification.
Example: If a government agency promises a business a tax exemption for five years and the business invests heavily on that assurance, the agency cannot abruptly withdraw the exemption before the promised period ends.
[2021 CLD 370 Supreme Court]
3. Key Legal Principles Governing Estoppel
The doctrine of estoppel operates under certain well-recognized principles that ensure its fair and consistent application in law. These guiding rules are:
- Founded on Equity and Good Conscience: Estoppel is rooted in fairness, ensuring that no party benefits from inconsistency or deceit.
- Applies to Facts, Not Rights: It addresses questions of fact rather than abstract legal rights.
- A Defensive Shield, Not a Sword: Estoppel can be invoked as a defense in legal proceedings but not as an independent cause of action.
- Not Applicable to Waiver of Rights: The plea of estoppel cannot replace or override the separate doctrine of waiver.
- Prevents Fraud and Promotes Honesty: Its core purpose is to prevent fraud, ensure justice between parties, and promote good faith dealings.
- Distinct from Res Judicata: While both prevent re-litigation, estoppel is different in scope and application from the doctrine of res judicata.
- A Rule of Pleading and Evidence: Estoppel functions both as a procedural plea and as an evidentiary principle.
- Acts as a Legal Bar, Not an Extinction of Rights: It restricts a party from asserting certain facts but does not destroy the underlying legal right.
4. Situations Where the Rule of Estoppel Does Not Apply
While the doctrine of estoppel is a powerful principle to ensure fairness and consistency, the law recognizes several important exceptions where it cannot be invoked. These include:
- On a Point of Law: There can be no estoppel on a pure question of law. Even though acquiescence is a species of estoppel, it cannot operate against the law itself. [2022 CLC 880]
- Against a Statute: Estoppel cannot be used to override or defeat the clear provisions of a statute. There can be no estoppel against the act of the legislature. [1996 MLD 144]
- On Questions of Rights: The rule applies only to questions of fact, not to questions involving legal rights.
- Against the Constitution: Estoppel cannot be invoked to nullify or contradict the provisions of the Constitution.
- In Criminal Cases: The doctrine does not apply in criminal proceedings, as matters of guilt and innocence cannot be barred by estoppel.
- Against the Jurisdiction of a Court: No estoppel can operate to confer jurisdiction on a court where none exists. [PLD 1974 Quetta 21]
- Where There Is a Legal Disability: If a person is under a legal disability to create a certain state of affairs, their representation cannot give rise to estoppel.
5. Key Characteristics of the Doctrine of Estoppel
The doctrine of estoppel has certain defining characteristics that determine how and when it operates in law. These include:
- Certainty: Estoppel must be precise and unambiguous. It should clearly refer to the specific representation—whether by words or conduct—on which it is founded.
- Operation: Estoppel neither creates legal title nor extinguishes an existing right. It simply acts as a legal bar, preventing a party from making assertions contrary to their earlier representation.
- Rule of Civil Action: Estoppel applies only in civil proceedings; it has no application in criminal cases.
- Cannot Circumvent the Law: Estoppel cannot be used to override statutory provisions or to achieve an outcome prohibited by law.
6. PROOF OF ESTOPPEL:
A party in order to prove estoppel, has to do more than to show that it has acted to its detriment and to the knowledge of the other party in the hope that the other party would not withdraw from the agreement in principle. It also has to show that the other party had created or encouraged a belief or expectation that he would not withdraw and the party seeking to find estoppel had relied on that belief or expectation. [2002 CLD 218]
Conclusion: Understanding the Scope and Significance of Estoppel
In conclusion, the doctrine of estoppel is a foundational principle in both common law and statutory frameworks, functioning primarily as a rule of evidence rooted in equity, fairness, and good conscience. Its core objective is to prevent a person from going back on their word or denying the truth of a fact that they have previously asserted—whether by words, conduct, or legal representation—especially when another party has relied upon that representation to their detriment.
It is important to note that estoppel does not itself create an independent cause of action; rather, it operates as a shield, not a sword. It bars inconsistent claims, ensuring honesty and promoting justice between parties. However, its application is subject to important limitations; it cannot override statutory provisions, constitutional safeguards, or fundamental principles of law.
From a practical standpoint, estoppel serves as a vital safeguard against fraud, dishonesty, and unfair advantage in legal proceedings.
Last updated: 8 August 2025