Whoever seeks equitable remedy like specific performance must show that he is vigilant and does all that was required of him to have clear hand to enforce the contract. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
– Belgore, JSC. Nlewedim v. Uduma (1995)
SHARE ON
In determining whether any given transaction is in the nature of a mortgage, equity looks at the substance of the matter and not merely at the form. – Iguh JSC. Ejikeme v. Okonkwo (1994)
The mere mention of “inequitable conduct” is a pointer to the equitable doctrine “He who comes into equity must come with clean hands”. This maxim will deny a relief to a complainant, who is himself guilty of inequitable conduct in reference to the matter in controversy. This means that the plaintiff must, in the matter of his claim, be free from any taint of fraud or bad faith. The cleanliness of hands must therefore relate to the matter of his claim, to the transaction in controversy. What bars the claim is not a general depravity but one which has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for.
– Oputa, JSC. Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989)
In the case of National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria Ltd. v. Power and Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 1 at 29, Aniagolu, JSC had this to say: “Equity, as we all know, inclines itself to conscience reason and good faith and implies, system of law disposed to a just regulation of mutual rights and duties of men, in a civilized society. It does not envisage sharp practice and undue advantage of a situation and a refusal to honour reciprocal liability arising therefrom; it will demand that a person will enter into a deal as a package-enjoying the benefits thereof and enduring, at the same time, the liabilities thereon.”
Though not mutually executed Exhibit A was regarded by the parties as their binding contract. Equity acts in personam and therefore takes as done that which ought to be done, if from the conduct of the parties such inference can be drawn. In the instant case, such facts abound on which the two Courts below concurrently found that the parties intended to be bound by Exhibit A and that Exhibit A would be the basis of their mutual transaction, whether or not the document was formally executed. Again, Equity acting in personam would look at the intent of the parties and the substance and not at the form. In the instant case, insistence on compliance with all formalities of executing a written agreement will be oppressive to the Respondent. The Appellant, in the Court of Justice, will not be allowed to take advantage of the Respondent on his own iniquity by his ingenious booby trap by which he deliberately withheld his signature while at the same time it made the Respondent go with the impression that the relationship is governed or regulated by Exhibit A. Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which codified the principle of estoppel by conduct, will not countenance the present posture of the Appellant and allow it resile out of Exhibit A.
— E. Eko, JSC. MTN v. Corporate (2019) – SC.674/2014
So, then at law as in equity the basic rule is that estates and interest order of primary rank in the creation, Qui prior est tempore potior est jure,. he who is earlier in time is stronger in law. Thus where there are two competing equitable interests, the general rule of equity is that the person whose equity attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over the other. Where therefore, the equities are equal and neither claimant has the legal estate, the first in time prevails as in the instant appeal, the equitable interest of the 1st Respondent being prior in time to the equitable interest of the 1st Appellant, the law is that it is the 1st Respondent’s equitable interest in the land in dispute being first in time that would prevail over the equitable interest of the 1st 48 Respondent since the equities are equal.
— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Anyi & Ors. v. Akande & Ors. (2017) – CA/L/334/2014
Jared v. Clements 1903 (Supra), a decision of a strong court, Collins M.R. Romer & Cozens-Hardy L.JJ.-Romer L.J. made the following observation: “A person contracts to purchase certain property. Before completion he is told of an equitable mortgage created some time before by his vendor. What is the position of the completing purchaser when he knows of this? He knows he cannot get title from his vendor unless that outstanding equitable interest is got in or destroyed; and if he completes without that equitable interest being got in or destroyed, he can only take the property subject to that outstanding interest being got in or destroyed. In order to get a good title, it is for him to see that the outstanding interest is got in or destroyed – the purchaser might have asked that the equitable mortgagee should join in the conveyance. He might have gone himself to the equitable mortgagee and asked how matters stood; or he might have done what in fact he did, and asked the vendor to get in the equitable interest …”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry