LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE Final

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE
Laches and Acquiescence are equitable defences. Laches consists of lapse of

time coupled with the existence of circumstances which make it inequitable to
enforce the claim. By this principle, a plaintiff in equity is expected to
prosecute his claim timeously. It is unjust to allow a plaintiff who has unduly
slept on his rights to insist on his strict legal rights after placing the other party
in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy
were afterward to be asserted.1
The term acquiescence on the other hand can be used in two senses; firstly, it
may refer to situation in which a person abstains from interfering while the
violation of his legal right is in progress; and second, it may mean that a person
refrains from seeking redress when a violation of his legal right (of which he
did not know at the time) is subsequently brought to his notice. 2
Application of the Doctrines
The courts frequently resort to the doctrines of laches and acquiescence where
it is necessary to do so. Though clear principles governing their application
have not been laid down, however, from decided cases, a few principles have
emerged.
(a) Actively Giving up Right
A person may be deemed to have given up his/her interest in a property
if he/she refrains from asserting his right when it is being violated. 3 The
relevant maxim is delay defeat equity. An undue delay may render an
injury irremediable for a new equilibrium might have been established
to disturb which might rather create a new injury than remedy the old
one. Lapse of time which amounts to laches varies and it depends on
peculiar situation of each case.
(b) Passive Acquiescence
Through inaction or neglect, a person may lose a right which he could
have enforced had he taken prompt action because equity will aid the
vigilant. Also, equity will not allow a person from benefiting from his
fraud.4
1
Lindsay Petroleum Co. Ltd v. Hurd (1874) LR. 5 PC221 at 239; Oyekunle v. Alari (1961) WRNLR 281; Ogundimu
v. Adeosun (1964) LLR 233
2
Caincross v. Lormier (1860) 3 L.R 130
3
Johnson v. Onisiwo (1943) 9 WACA 189
4
Ramsden Dyson (1886) L.R 1 H.L 129 at 140
Thus, in such a situation, the plaintiff could not be said to have acted in
faith.5 The onus of proof in a plea of laches and acquiescence is on the
defendant who pleaded it.6
Limits of the Doctrines
The doctrines of laches and acquiescence are equitable principles designed
purposely to give defence where the law offers no assistance. Acquiescence
must be true acquiescence before it can be successfully pleaded as a defence. 7
Laches and acquiescence based on long use and long possession must be open
and adverse, thus, court is very slow to infer laches and acquiescence in
respect of land over which occupational rights have been originally granted to
strangers.8
It should be noted that if the owner is aware that the stranger/tenant is
alienating or attempting to alienate the property and he failed to intervene,
then the question of acquiescence will not arise.
Laches and Customary Law
It is a well-known principle of West African Native Law that by strict native law,
there is no period of limitation of suits. 9 In Sunmonu v. Disu Raphael, 10 it was
held that the statute of limitation was inapplicable to land held under
customary law. Also, a pledgor in customary law redeem his land regardless of
the length of time.11 However, a litigant who sleeps on his right may be met
with the doubt that he has a well- founded claim. Also, difficulty of adducing
evidence in support of his claim is also very great because, with the passage of
time, memories grow dim and witnesses die.
It should be pointed out that the doctrines of laches does not apply to cases
governed by statute of limitation. Thus, if statute of limitation states the time
lapse, it is that time that applies and not the doctrines of laches and
acquiescence. As such, where the statute of limitation applies, then no delay
short of the limitation period in the statute will bar the claim.
5
Odutola v. Akande (1960) 5 FSC 142
6
Alade v. Aborisade (1960) 5 FSC 167; Finn v. Ayeni [1964] NLR 130
7
Moryo v. Okiade (1942) 8 WACA 46
8
Oshodi v. Oloje (1958 L.L.R 1 at 5
9
See Osborn C.J in A.G v. John Holt & Co (1910) 2 NLR 1 at 39
10
(1927) A.C 881
11
Suleman v. Johnson (1951) 13 WACA 213

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

Laches and Acquiescence are equitable defences. Laches consists of lapse of

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.