(1965) LCER-341(SC) #

Case Summary #

This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

Brief Facts: #

This appeal challenges the decision of the High Court of Lagos. The case revolves around a property devised by the plaintiffs’ grandfather through his will, initially held by his children in joint tenancy and later to be held in common tenancy by the eldest sons of his children. Several events occurred over the years, including the deaths of certain children without issue and the survival of others.

In 1936, a suit was initiated in the Supreme Court of Nigeria for the partition or sale of the property, then known as Manchester House. The plaintiffs in this suit were one of the deceased children’s daughter, another son, along with two twin sons of another daughter. The defendants were another son and his eldest son. By consent, the suit was swiftly heard, and judgment was given to sell the property to the United Africa Co. Ltd. for a specific price, with proceeds to be distributed among the parties.

Subsequently, an order was sought and granted for Mr. E. J. A. Taylor to execute a conveyance to the present respondents, which was executed accordingly. The appellants alleged defects in the proceedings of the 1936 suit, claiming the orders were void and the conveyance ineffective, which the Defense denied.

The Defense further argued that since the conveyance, the respondents have been in lawful and undisturbed possession of the property, making developments at great expense, known to the appellants, who failed to object and are therefore estopped by their conduct. Additionally, the Defense asserted that the appellants’ claim is barred by laches and acquiescence.

The trial judge, addressing this aspect of the Defense, labeled it as laches and held that the plaintiffs’ delay in asserting their claim for nearly a quarter of a century rendered their claim stale and therefore defeated. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues: #

The Court determined the issues joined by the parties.

Ratio Decidendi #

EQUITY – Equitable Defences – Laches – What the court would consider before applying the doctrine of laches #

“The locus classicus is in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221, 239, where Sir Barnes Peacock stated the law 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 fairly be 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.” That is cited in Agbeyegbe v. ikomi 12 W.A.C.A. 383, 386, by Lord Oaksey, with the observations of Lord Blackburn in Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) L.R. 3 App. Cas. 1218.” Per VAHE ROBERT BAIRAMIAN, JSC in S.A.T. TAYLOR V. KINGSWAY STORES OF NIGERIA LTD (1965) LCER-341(SC) (Pp 5 – 6; Paras D – E)

Decision/Held: #

On the whole, the appeal was dismissed.