Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FACTORS THAT WILL ENABLE THE GRANT OF LACHES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

A person may not be deprived of his legal rights on grounds of acquiescence or laches unless it will be inequitable and unjust to grant him such a right because he has done by his conduct that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it or he has by his conduct or neglect put the other party in a position where it will not be reasonable to place such other party if the remedy were to be asserted. Two factors are always taken into consideration in granting the remedy sought and these are – (i.) the length of the delay; and (ii.) the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in so far as it relates to the grant of the remedy.

– Wali JSC. Kayode v. Odutola (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

NATURE OF LACHES & ACQUIESCENCE

Accordingly, it has been said that if a stranger begins to build on another’s land supposing it to be his own and the real owner, perceiving his mistake, abstains from setting him right and leaves him to persevere in his error, a court of equity will not allow such real owner afterwards to assert his title to the land on which the stranger has expended money on the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that the owner saw the mistake into which the stranger had fallen and that it was the duty of such owner to be active and to assert his adverse title; and that it would be dishonest in the owner to remain willfully passive on such an occasion, in order afterwards to profit by the mistake which such owner might have prevented. See Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R.H.L. 129 at 140. One vital point has, however, been made. This is the fact that laches and acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud. It is added that a man must not be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in such a way as would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. See Willmot v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch. D. 96 at 105 and Abbey v. Onenu (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 567 at 568.

– Iguh JSC. Kayode v. Odutola (2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

DEFENCES TO LACHES & ACQUIESCENCE

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

CONDUCT THAT WILL AMOUNT TO LACHES & ACQUIESCENCE

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

EQUITABLE DEFENCE OF LACHES

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

FOR LACHES TO SUCCEED, THERE MUST BE KNOWLEDGE TOO

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

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 1852 | UO – 0 | GO – 1198 | BO – 654

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.