STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

THE OPERATION OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In Kayode v. Odutola (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 659 at 684, D—F per Iguh JSC: ‘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 wilfully 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.’

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

acquiescence, laches

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?

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?

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?

DOCTRINE OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE BARS A PERSON

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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.

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?

No more related dictum to show.