“The law on the doctrine of laches was stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221 at p. 239 as follows:-“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has by his conduct, done that which might be fairly regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy. In Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, Lord Blackburn made a similar observation. These cases have been followed in Agbeyegbe v. Ikomi 12 W.A.C.A. 383 and in the more recent case of Taylor and others v. Kingsway Stores and Anor. (1965) N.M.L.R. 103. In Taiwo v. Taiwo (1958) 3 F.S.C. 80, this Court said at p. 82 of the report- “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 factor 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 defendant’s failure to assert a claim to Rosannah’s share of the rents which they were taking.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
