Also the plea of laches and acquiescence is not normally acceptable under customary law as the length of possession of land cannot confer title.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)
Also the plea of laches and acquiescence is not normally acceptable under customary law as the length of possession of land cannot confer title.
– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)
SHARE ON
The doctrine of laches and acquiescence are equitable defences which operate to bar a person who has slept over his right for a long period of time from asserting his said right against an innocent party. The Courts have always refused aid for stale demand, where a party slept over his right. See Alhaji Oduola and Ors. v. Ibadan City Council and Anor. (1978) 4 SC 59; Igbum v. Nyarinya (2001) FWLR (pt.67) 950 at 975. It is trite principle of law that any party relying on the defence of laches must state the fact in his pleadings.
— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Alabi v Audu (2017) – CA/A/494/2014
In Kaiyaoja and Ors. v. Lasisi Egunla (1974) All NLR 913, a situation which is not completely dissimilar to the one at hand, in considering the applicability of the doctrine of acquiescence and laches this court held – “3. that the doctrine of laches and acquiescence was wrongly applied to this case. 4. that mere lapse of time is not enough to justify the defence of laches unless such lapse of time is coupled with the existence of circumstances which make it inequitable to enforce the claim; 5. that, though there may be acquiescence without undue delay, yet the acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to a fraud. 6. that the appellant’s conduct in the present case was such that they could not be said to have slept upon their rights.”
The law is trite that delay alone is not enough to prove laches. It must be proved that the owner of the house had knowledge of the sale and by his act or inaction, he encouraged the adverse party to expend money on the property. See Akanni v. Makanju (1978) 11 NSCC 526 at 533-534. In the instant case, the appellant totally failed to establish these attributes of the defence of laches.
— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Alabi v Audu (2017) – CA/A/494/2014
Essentially the equitable defences of acquiescence and laches involve a loss of time and substantial delay in asserting the right being claimed of. Either of the defences will only apply if:- i. there is evidence of an agreement by the plaintiff to give up or release his right; ii. the delay to enforce the right has resulted in the destruction or loss of evidence by which the claim might be rebutted; iii. the claim is to a business for the plaintiff for which he should not be allowed to adopt the attitude of wait and see the business if it would prosper; iv. the plaintiff has not done any thing as to induce the defendant to alter his position on the reasonable belief that the claim has been released or abandoned.
– Wali JSC. Kayode v. Odutola (2001)
Equitable estoppel thus bears some relationship to the equitable doctrine of laches. The type of conduct that will amount to laches and acquiescence will be such that will be repugnant to equity and good conscience.
– Oputa JSC. Gbadamosi v. Bello (1985)
The concept of Statute of Limitation is to allow a defendant take advantage of the equitable defence of laches where the plaintiff is guilty of unreasonable and prejudicial delay in commencing the suit. Where in a situation such as this, the suit was commenced within time and due to no fault of the Plaintiff the case was at the Supreme Court struck out for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court of first instance, it would amount to grave injustice when the suit is re-filed at the appropriate court to allow the defendant plead Statute of Limitation.
– Iyizoba, JCA. SIFAX v. MIGFO (2015)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry