CORAM

---

EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)

OKAY ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

ALHAJI RAJI ODUOLA

BELLO LAHAN

CHIEF BELLO AKINRIN (For themselves and on behalf of the Ibikunle family)

APPELLANTS 

---

IBADAN CITY COUNCIL

A.G. LEVENTIS & CO. (NIG) LTD

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW – LACHES AND ACQUIESCENSE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

There was a dispute as to ownership of a particular piece of property. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff could not claim ownership of the property as they were barred by the doctrine of laches.

 

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the gist of the doctrine of laches is that a plaintiff would be banned from seeking relief from a Court of Law unless he has been reasonably diligent.

In the face of this finding, the application of the doctrine of laches, as explained above, to the plaintiffs’ claim against the two respondents by the learned trial Judge is inescapable.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial judge was right in applying the doctrine of laches

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

THE APPLICATION OF THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES

---

The gist of the equitable doctrine of laches is that a plaintiff will be banned, unless he has been reasonably diligent, from seeking relief from the court. The doctrine is, however, broadly applied by the courts in the light of the type of relief sought and the circumstances. The doctrine applies where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the plaintiff has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect, he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the defendant in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted- Fatayi- Williams J.S.C

 

---

DEFENCE OF LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

---

“A plaintiff faced with the defence of laches and acquiescence may succeed in his claim if he can make a reasonable explanation for the cause of his delay to assert his rights. Such explanations may be

(i) that he was all the while ignorant of his rights or that he lacked full knowledge of the existence of such rights or

(ii) that he was all the while under legal disability or incapacity; or

(iii) that he was under undue influence or that he lacked free will.” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221

Nwakobi v. Nzekwu (1964) 1 WLR 1819

Lajide Onamogha Akuru v. Olubadan-in-Council (1954) 14 WACA 523

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT