OVERVIEW OF LATCHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

OVERVIEW OF LATCHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

The equitable defences of laches and acquiescence shield parties from claims that it would be unfair to allow the plaintiff to continue their claim due to a protracted delay in doing so, the plaintiff's actions, the defendant's reliance, or a combination of any one or more of these factors.

The concept of laches and consent is solely a product of equality. The theory, which is applicable when equitable remedy is requested but no legislative limitation time is applicable, is substantially similar to statutory limitation periods.

When a party has lapsed on their right and acquiesced for a very long period, equity courts have never offered assistance for stale demands. Only conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence can lead a court to exercise jurisdiction; in the absence of them, a court will take no action. The legal term for a delay that is long enough to preclude a party from achieving an equitable remedy is "laches."

LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

In the English ruling Lindsay Petroleum Company v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221, the following was said as the standard reference:

“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 be unreasonable to play cement 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 of an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that the live course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the the validity of that defense must be tried upon principle substantially equitable. To circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay in 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”

The following are the primary factors to take into account while assessing whether a delay amounted to laches:

Acquiescence on the claimant’s part;Any change of position that is occurred on the defendant’s part that arose from reasonable reliance on the claimant’s acceptance of the status quo. The court concluded that the doctrine considers whether the delay of the plaintiff constitutes acquiescence or results in circumstances that make the prosecution of the action unreasonable.

Ultimately laches must be resolved as a matter of justice as between the parties, as is the case with any equitable doctrine.

THE CLAIMANT MUST BE SHOWN TO:

Have knowledge of the underlying facts giving rise to a claim have knowledge of the facts constitute a legal claim.The test is whether it is reasonable for a plaintiff to be ignorant of his or her legal rights given his or her knowledge of the underlying facts relevant to a possible legal claim;The claimant’s actions are in action must be taken to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

It must be demonstrated that the defendant changed their position in a reasonable effort to take advantage of the claimant's acceptance of the status quo or that they somehow allowed a circumstance to develop that it would be unfair to disrupt.

NB: This article is not a legal advice, and under no circumstance should you take it as such. All information provided are for general purpose only. For information, please contact chamanlawfirm@gmail.com

WRITTEN BY CHAMAN LAW FIRM TEAM

EMAIL: chamanlawfirm@gmail.com

TEL: 08065553671, 08024230080