ACQUIESCENCE IN LAND – LEAVING A STRANGER TO BUILD ON LAND

“If for instance, a stranger begins to build on my land, supposing it to be his own, and I, perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a Court of Equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land on which he had expended money on, the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that when I saw the mistake into which he had fallen, it was my duty to be active, and to state my adverse title; and that it would be dishonest in me to remain wilfully passive on such an occasion in order afterward to profit by the mistake which I might have prevented”. See Lord Cranworth in Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) 1 H.L. 140: see also Rafat v. Ellis (1954) 14WACA. 430.

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE VS WAIVER, DISTINCTION

Acquiescence imports tacit consent. It is the giving of an implied consent to a transaction, to the accrual of a right, or to any act, by one’s mere silence or without express assent or acknowledgment. Waiver, on the other hand, is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right, or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right or when one dispenses with the performance of something one is entitled to exact or when one in possession of any right, whether conferred by law or by contract, with full knowledge of the material facts does or forebears to do something, the doing of which or the failure or forbearance to do which is in consistent with the right or his intention to rely upon it. The party against whom the doctrine of waiver is raised must: (a) be aware of the act or omission; and (b) do some equivocal act adopting or recognising the act or omission.
In this case, the trial court was right in holding that the mere refusal or failure of the appellant to protest the alteration in the rate of interest when he received his statement of account could not amount to a waiver of his right to challenge same by action. [Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNI,It 1 at 27; Adio v. A. G, 0yo State (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 163) 448; Odu’a Investment Co. Ltd v. Talabi (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 170) 761]

– L.A. Ayanlere v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nig. Ltd. (1998) – CA/K/186/96

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE WHICH AMOUNT TO FRAUD

The appellants have not denied that the respondent had been on the land since the Shagari administration and when they met him prior to 2002, a fence of three coaches of blocks, a gate which they removed and a Mosque were on the land. The appellants have shown a high degree of acquiescence which may amount to fraud. It was either they had voided absolutely the first sale to the respondent or they had chosen to revalidate it. They cannot approbate and reprobate. Equity will not allow it. The appellants have lost their reversionary right to title in the land through their conduct of revalidating the 20 years or more possession of the respondent.

– Ogunwumiju JCA. Awure v. Iledu (2007)

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE TO DEPRIVE A MAN MUST BE FRAUDULENT TO HOLD SWAY

Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D 96 at p. 105 viz: “It has been said that the acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud, and in my view, that is an abbreviated statement of a very true proposition. A man is not to 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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE MUST HAVE AMOUNTED TO FRAUD

In Abbey v. Ollenu (1954) 14 WACA 567 at 568, the West African Court of Appeal adopted and quoted with approval the dictum of Fry J. in Willmot v. Barber (1880) 15 CH.D 96 at 105 thus: “It has been said that the acquiescence which will deprive a man of his legal rights must amount to fraud and in my view that is an abbreviated statement of a very true proposition. A man is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he acted in such a way as would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights.” See also Gerrard v. O’Reilly 3 D and WAR 414.

LASPE OF TIME IS EVIDENCE OF ACQUIESCENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE IN LAND – LEAVING A STRANGER TO BUILD ON LAND

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE VS WAIVER, DISTINCTION

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE WHICH AMOUNT TO FRAUD

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE TO DEPRIVE A MAN MUST BE FRAUDULENT TO HOLD SWAY

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT SUCCEED WHERE PARTY ON LAND WITH LEAVE OF LANDLORD

Was this dictum helpful?

ACQUIESCENCE MUST HAVE AMOUNTED TO FRAUD

Was this dictum helpful?