ACQUIESCENCE VS WAIVER, DISTINCTION

LASPE OF TIME IS EVIDENCE OF ACQUIESCENCE

Lapse of time is generally evidence of acquiescence but acquiescence is not just mere lapse of time. – Oputa JSC. Gbadamosi v. Bello (1985)

ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT SUCCEED WHERE PARTY ON LAND WITH LEAVE OF LANDLORD

The defence of acquiescence presupposes adverse possession. Such a plea cannot succeed where, as in this case, the appellants were on the land with the leave and licences of the respondents. They ought to know that their root of title derived from the respondents. In putting up those 5 buildings, they could not be acting in the bona fide belief that they were owners. Since laches and acquiescence are equitable reliefs, the bona fides of the possessor becomes material.

– Oputa JSC. Gbadamosi v. Bello (1985)

ACQUIESCENCE MUST HAVE LED THE OTHER PARTY TO ALTER HIS POSITION

In Taiwo v. Taiwo (1958) SCNLR 244 particularly at 247 – 248, this court in dealing with the equitable defences of acquiescence and laches, stated as follows:- “Acquiescence does not bar a claim unless certain conditions are fulfilled. One of the most important is that the party who relies upon his opponent’s acquiescence must have been led by it to expend money or otherwise alter his position. There is nothing to show here that the plaintiffs or their predecessor in title, Rebecca, have been led to do anything of the sort by the defendants’ failure to assert their claim. However, the plaintiffs here do not rely, upon bare acquiescence, but upon acquiescence over a long period; I should prefer to say that they rely on the defendants’ laches. Laches is not delay alone; some other factor must exist, or at least the delay must be such that the existence of some other factors may be inferred. Laches may be evidence of the waiver of a party’s right, but waiver is incomplete without consideration in some shape or form proceeding from the other party. There is no evidence of that here; neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor in title here acted in any way upon the defendants’ failure to assert a claim to Rosannah’s share of the rents which they were taking. Counsel for the plaintiffs speaks of the defendants’ case as a stale claim. There is a stale claim when laches has brought about the destruction or loss of evidence which might have supported or rebutted it. In the present case the rights of the parties depend on native law and custom, not on any dealings between individuals giving rise to private rights which the passage of time might have made more difficult to establish. Evidence relevant to the native law and custom governing the case is as available now as it was 14 years ago. In my view, the defendants’ inactivity, by itself and unaccompanied by any other circumstance which would make it a fraud or unconscionable on their part to maintain whatever rights they may have to a share in Rosannah’s estate, has not relieved the plaintiffs from the burden of showing positively that the native law and custom in this matter is what they assert it to be. It still rests with the plaintiffs to show that native law entitled them to succeed to Rosannah’s share to the exclusion of Fredrick’s children.” See also Solomon v. Mogaji (1982) 11 SC 1.