Law 423 Equity and Trust I

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE CODE:
COURSE TITLE:
LAW423
Equity and Trust I
Course Code:
LAW 423
Course Title:
Equity and Trusts I
Course Writer:
Mrs. Omotayo T. Abisoye

School of Law
National Open University of Nigeria
Lagos.
Editor :
Dr. Taiwo E. Adewale

Faculty of Law
University of Ibadan
Ibadan.
Ag. Dean
Ifidon Oyakhiromen, PhD. BL

School of Law, NOUN
Programme Leader:
Mr. Kunle Aina (sabbatical)

School of Law, NOUN
Course Coordinators: O Abisoye (Mrs.), O. Lawal, C. Hia

School of Law, NOUN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MODULE 1
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
MODULE 2
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
General Principles of Equity I

History of equity
Introduction of the doctrines of equity into Nigeria
The relation between Equity and Common Law
Conflicts between Equity and Law
Nature of equitable rights I
Nature of equitable rights II
General Principles of Equity II
Maxims of equity
Priorities
Assignment of choses in action
Conversion and reconversion
Election
Satisfaction
MODULE 3
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Equitable Remedies
Injunction
Specific performance
Rescission
Rectification, delivery up and cancellation of documents
MODULE 4
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Equitable Defences
Promissory Estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel
Laches and Acquiescence.
MODULE 1
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
UNIT 1
General Principles of Equity I
History of equity
Introduction of the doctrines of equity into Nigeria
The relation between Equity and Common Law
Conflicts between Equity and Law
Nature of equitable rights I
Nature of equitable rights II
HISTORY OF EQUITY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Law and equity
3.2
Conscience
3.3
Difference and conflict
3.4
Equity and the common law in the narrow sense
Conclusion
Summary
Tutor-Marked Assignments
References / Further Reading
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This is an introductory unit. It introduces us to the law of equity and how it was developed in the
court of Chancery in England. There is a wealth of literature on equity jurisprudence; its origin,
development and the part it has played in those countries having the common law as the foundation of their legal systems. From its origin to the present period, equity has been kept under strict
and constant surveillance. Its origin and development have been emphasized and its main principles have been amplified all in a determined attempt to ensure that the principles of equity do not
fall behind societys immediate needs and aspirations. Equity came to mitigate the rigours of the
common law.
2.0
OBJECTIVES
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Trace the origin of equity;

Explain the notions of conscience; and
Differentiate Equity from the common law.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Law and equity
Definition
4
The word equity literally means fairness. Equity is defined in the Oxford Advanced Learners
dictionary 6th edition as a system of natural justice allowing a fair judgment in a situation where
the existing laws are not satisfactory. To a layman, the question what is equity? does not create
any difficulty. It simply means right doing, good faith, honest and ethical dealings in transactions
and relationships. Conception of the term equity in this sense is usually classified as equity in
its most popular sense, which is of no juristic significance.
According to Jegede, for obvious reasons, no municipal legal system, however highly developed
can take cognizance of or regulate all acts that may be inconsistent with this broad conception of
equity. Moreover, the demands of the term equity in this sense are not capable of enforcement,
for they do not create or produce any legal obligation. Yet the use of the term equity in this sense
is not peculiar to the unlearned in the science of law. However, the lawyer takes a different and
more cautious view of the term equity when it is used in a limited but legal sense and clothed
with the cloak of juristic significance.
Juristic Sense of Equity
The juristic sense of the term equity may be subdivided into two, one complementary to the
other and both affecting the administration of law and justice by recognized judicial tribunals.
In the first place, there is the general juristic sense of the term equity. Here equity means the
power to meet the moral standards of justice in a particular case by a tribunal having discretion to
mitigate the rigidity of the application of strict rules of law so as to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the particular case or a liberal and humane interpretation of law in general, so far
as that is possible without actual antagonism to the law itself.
In the second place, there is the technical sense of the term equity. Equity in this sense means a
special and peculiar department of the English legal system which was created, developed and
administered in the Court of Chancery. This may be a satisfactory definition of English equity
before the Judicature Act of 1875 which provides for the administration of law and equity by the
same tribunal. According to Maitland, in his book Equity (Brunyate Ed.) 1949, prior to 1875,
Equity is that body of rules which is administered only by those courts which are known as
Courts of Equity.
But after 1875, it is no longer satisfactory to define equity in terms of a court, that is, the Court of
Chancery as distinct from the other superior courts. The Judicature Act of 1875 has amalgamated
all the superior courts into a Supreme Court of Judicature administering both the rules of equity
and the rules of common law. Thus, Equity now is that body of rules administered by our English courts of justice which, were it not for the operation of the Judicature Acts, would be administered only by those courts which would be known as Courts of Equity. The extent to which
the same definition may be applied to the technical rules of equity received into the Nigerian Legal System will be discussed later.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the court structure in England and Wales was in a
mess. The population was subject to the jurisdiction of a dual system of superior courts. On the
one side were the three common law courts, viz the Common Pleas, the Queens Bench and
the Exchequer of Pleas. On the other hand was the Court of Chancery. The three common law
courts had grown up under the authority of the English kings during the Middle Ages. They were
known as courts of common law because according to royal propaganda, that law applied to all
5
subjects and the whole realm.

Only an historical explanation can be offered for why there were three such common law courts
with substantially overlapping jurisdictions. They could and often did give different answers to
the same questions and there was no reliable method of ironing out those differences. But rules
based on judgments given in these common law courts and even the judgments themselves were
in some cases being denied or added to in the Chancery. This was not by way of appeal. The
common law judgment was not formally set aside or reversed; the Chancery, while leaving it intact, simply issued an order which was inconsistent with that of the common law judges. The
constitutional position was that this second order prevailed, leaving the common law answer as
an overshadowed solution to the problem.
These Chancery orders had come to be made by applying a body of doctrine and principles invented initially by the Chancellor and later by his subordinate the Master of the Rolls. These
rules, principles and doctrines of the Court of Chancery, bearing this complex relationship with
the doctrines of the common law, were to be known as Equity. This body of law did not, however, cover the entire area of business which the common law courts had taken as their jurisdiction.
It was essentially a private law jurisdiction, dealing with matters raised by private individuals,
protecting their private interests. There was no involvement with the common law of crime.
The principal focuses of attention were the laws of property and contract. Only incidentally to
these was it to develop a law of private wrongs. Equity was not the only jurisdiction exercised in
the Chancery, but it was the one which was to leave the greatest impression on the development
of the legal system.
The system of justice administered by the early Chancery was based on common law rules,
though the rules were administered in a more liberal and more humane manner with a view to
achieving the end of justice. This is borne out of the fact that early petitions were in respect of
indubitable legal wrongs, assaults, batteries, imprisonments, disseisins and a variety of outrages
inherent in the feudal society.
These wrongs were cognisable in the common law courts, but were presented before the Chancery in form of petitions because of the inflexible position of the common law courts in respect
of writs; and because of certain ills of the society which made it difficult for commoners and
people of poor means to obtain justice from the common law courts.
3.2
Conscience
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Chancery in granting reliefs to the various petitions was based on reason, conscience and justice in the administration of law. Chancery had a reputation as a court
administering an individual discretionary justice in contrast to the inflexible monoliths of the
common law. Whether this was perceived by all litigants in Chancery (or even common law)
may be doubted.
Much of the jurisprudence of the court has been concerned with working out the detailed administrative implications of having taken an earlier moral stance. Many of these decisions,
like much administration, have little reference to individuated notions of right and wrong.
But the tradition is fundamentally well based and it is impossible to read Equity cases of any
6
period without being aware of it.

Pre-17th century Chancery jurisdiction was vague and elastic. As noted earlier, Chancery jurisdiction originated in the prerogative of the King to dispense extra-ordinary justice on the
grounds of reason and conscience, where the ordinary processes of common law were inadequate or defective. The suitor or the petitioner humbly prayed in his petition to the Chancellor
for the exercise of the Kings Grace. The early Chancellor was a church-man, versed in both
the canon and the Roman law. From his training and background, he was well qualified to
deal with appeals to Grace, Charity and Conscience; it was an elastic jurisdiction, the limit
of which was difficult to define.
The early history of the jurisdiction is obscure. The history which leaves traces began at the
end of the Middle Ages in the early 16th century. By that date, it can be said that the common
law courts had in some areas become inadequate. Outside the law of tort, they had shown an
insufficient ability to adapt to new claims, and the set forms of writs particularly restricted the
development of new issues and defences.
There was also dissatisfaction with common law remedies. Despite having taken the inspired
decision to enforce rights of property in land by actually delivering it up by force, if need be,
to its owner, it enforced other rights, including property in chattels, as well as all contract and
tort claims by a money judgment.
Finally, common law pleading had become both overly complex and also a monument to single mindedness in its stubborn refusal to allow more than one issue to be tried at a time. Reform of these defects by statute was not seen to be an answer. Disappointed parties petitioned
the King to get them out of the mess into which his common law courts had put them, and to
receive the ordinary justice, the fair and commonsense solution, the equity, which they were
otherwise denied.
According to Jeffrey Hackney in his book Understanding Equity and Trusts, p.17-18, these
petitions came to be heard by the Kings greatest officer of state, the Chancellor. By the early
16th century, he was giving decisions in his own name and had established a jurisdiction over
freehold land. It soon became a trademark of Chancery thinking to emphasize good faith
and to appeal to notions of conscience. The avoidance of unconscionability may be the central informing idea. These notions of conscience which do not figure prominently in the articulation of common law rules are familiar in the canon law. It is possible that the ecclesiastical background of early Chancellors accounts for this emphasis.
He explained that, Step by step they set about plugging the loopholes left by the common
laws shortcomings. Their pleadings were more flexible. They gave orders to parties to do
things other than deliver up land or pay sums of money and so laid the foundation of the
modern law of specific performance of contracts and of injunctions. They relieved against
accidental hardship and certain kinds of oppressive behaviour. They allowed the creation and
transfer of a new kind of intangible property, the right to payment of a debt, which developed
into the branch of law known to us by the archaic name of the assignment of choses in action
(things protected only by litigation). Most dramatically of all, they invented the use, later
to be reborn as the modern trust. By this device, they would order that property held on a
common law title by Y, as his own, should rather be administered by Y only for the benefit of
X, the beneficiary of the use.
7
This would often be in consequence of a voluntary undertaking by Y, but sometimes it would

not. Of greater significance still is that even if there were a voluntary undertaking, it need not
have been to X herself, but to a third party, often a relative of X, who had conveyed the property to Y. Uses were not contract. In this way, Chancellors supported, supplemented and corrected the common law.
The principles of conscience are, however, vague and uncertain and unless they are guided
within well-defined limits, they may soon lead to a system of justice based solely upon individual and autocratic discretion. The vague and extensive jurisdiction of the early Chancery
could not for long resist some of the inflexible attitude of the common law lawyers, some of
whom later presided over the Chancery. Through their influence and the improved reports of
equity cases in the middle 17th century, Chancery division lost its flexibility and adopted the
common law system of precedent.
Henceforth, equitable rules have since become as fixed and systemized as the common law
rules. Instead of abiding by the dictates of conscience and the societys notions of justice and
fair play in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the Chancery, from the Chancellorship of
Ellesmere (1595-1617), began to apply the doctrine of judicial precedent.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
What do you understand by the term equity?
3.3
Difference and conflict
According to Jeffrey Hackney (op.cit.), pp. 18-19, the Chancellors decisions had begun as individual decisions solving individual grievances or simply dilemmas posed by conscientious trustees wanting to know what to do. There were suits in the Chancery, not actions, and the Chancellor gave decrees not judgments. The contrast with the regular court system was enhanced by
the absence of a jury and by the Chancellors practice of not taking oral evidence. But a combination of repeated circumstance and a desire to treat like cases alike was ultimately to drive the
Chancellor into developing a system of rules: equity was to become Equity.
The early days of this development were not marked by hostility from the common lawyers, but
in the 16th century it began to brew. Cardinal Wolsey, one of Henry VIIIs powerful Chancellors,
had in the 1520s caused much resentment by his encroaching and aggressive behaviour. The socalled common injunctions denying litigants even the right of access to common law courts
were also a cause of much friction. Matters came to a head in the early 17th century when Coke,
then Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, challenged the right of the Chancellor, Ellesmere, to
override common law results. Cokes appeal to the King in 1616 failed. From that date it has not
been questioned that when the rules of Equity and common law conflict, it is the rules of Equity
which shall prevail. This will be considered in detail in Unit 3 of this Module.
3.4
Equity and the common law in the narrow sense
There are two usages of common law: the wider usage, meaning the whole of the royal law,
includes Equity; the narrower usage, focusing on the contrast, excludes it. If there was resentment about the divergence after 1616, it did not surface. Relations between the two systems
were on the surface amicable, much aided by the diplomatic formulations of equitable rules
which hid the substance of what was going on: we are not overturning the common law rules;
8
all we are saying is that while Y may own at common law, X owns in Equity, so disguising the
fact that X may be happy Y may not.
Equally effectively, decisions were often attributed to the demands of Equity as if it were some
creature with a will of its own, some personified virtue, some Marianne, pulling the strings of
the judicial marionettes.
Marianne is an image of a woman personifying the French republic, e.g. on French coins, usually depicted in a light flowing robe and wearing the Phrygian cap of liberty. (Marionette is a
puppet operated by means of strings attached to its hands, legs, head, and body).
4.0
CONCLUSION
The early history of the jurisdiction of equity is obscure. The history which leaves traces began
at the end of the Middle Ages in the early 16th century. By that date, it can be said that the
common law courts had in some areas become inadequate. Outside the law of tort, they had
shown an insufficient ability to adapt to new claims, and the set forms of writs particularly restricted the development of new issues and defences. Equity, therefore, came to relieve the rigours of the common law.
5.0
SUMMARY
This unit has introduced you briefly to the law of equity. You should now be able to: trace the
origin of equity; explain the notions of conscience; and differentiate Equity from the common
law.
6.0
TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
How is the conflict between common law and equity resolved?
7.0
REFERENCES / FURTHER READING
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 6th edition

Hackney Jeffrey, (1987) Understanding Equity and Trusts; London: Fontana press
Jegede M. I. (2007rep.) Principles of Equity; Ibadan: Unique Design/Prints
UNIT 2
INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITY INTO NIGERIA
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Ordinances
3.2
Customary law and equity
3.2.1 Repugnancy doctrine and customary law
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, we traced the origin of equity, explained the notions of conscience and differentiated equity from common law in the narrow sense. In this unit, we will consider how the
doctrines of equity were introduced into Nigeria.
The modern technical rules and doctrines of equity which originated from the early English
Chancery were formally received into the Nigerian legal system through various statutory enactments. These technical rules and doctrines of equity are the outcome of many ancient and modern
English judicial decisions, established and ascertainable in the same manner as the common law
rules. It seems to follow that any technical rule of equity in force in Nigeria must have its foundation or its ancestry in an English case law. This is the focus of this unit.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Explain how the doctrines of equity were introduced into Nigeria; and
(ii) Explain the repugnancy doctrine.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Ordinances
English law and doctrines of Equity were introduced into Nigeria by means of local legislation.
The first of such legislations was Ordinance No. 3 of 1863.
Ordinance No. 3 of 1863
This enactment broadly introduced English law into the territory of Lagos without any further
analysis. In the absence of any information or record as to the interpretation of the laws so introduced, it is reasonable to assume that the introduced laws had been those administered in the
practice of the English courts. As such, any reference to the laws of England will, by necessary
implication be interpreted to include not only the rules of common law but also the rules of eq10
uity as developed respectively in the English common law courts and the English Chancery
Courts.
Section 1 of this Ordinance No. 3 of 1863 introduced all laws and statutes, which were in force
in England on the 1st day of January, 1863, and made them part of the laws of the Colony of
Lagos. The only limitation was that such laws and statutes must not be inconsistent with any
Ordinance in force in the Colony; and that they must be applied in the administration of justice
so far as local circumstances would permit.
Section 14 of this Ordinance introduced more clearly, the English common law, the doctrines
of equity and statutes of general application which were in force in England on the 24th day of
July, 1874, to be in force within the jurisdiction of the courts in the Colony of Lagos. Because
of the inclusion of the phrase, doctrines of equity, in this Ordinance, it is tempting to argue
that this Ordinance is the forerunner of the introduction into Nigeria of the doctrines of equity.
Therefore, it can be reasonably asserted that the technical principles of equity as developed by
successive Chancellors in England were incorporated into the laws of the Colony of Lagos for
the first time only in 1876. Section 17 of this Ordinance made the application of Imperial Laws
subject to local circumstances and to any existing or future Ordinance of the colonial legislature.
Section 18 of the same Ordinance also enjoined the British established courts in the Colony to
observe the observance of the native laws and customs of the people of the Colony; such laws
and customs not being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. This doctrine
will be considered later on at the end of this unit.
Consequent upon the merger of the Colony of Lagos with the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria
on the 1st of January, 1900, this Ordinance No. 17 of 1906 was passed in order to make applicable to the new Protectorate the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 of 1876. Similar steps had earlier been taken in respect of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria by means of Proclamations.
See section 4 of the Protectorate Courts Proclamation, No. 4 of 1900.
This Ordinance repealed all existing enactments and re-enacted their provisions with minor alterations. The Ordinance remained in force until it was finally superseded by the Supreme
Court Ordinance, 1914, which became applicable to the whole of Nigeria on the amalgamation
of Northern and Southern Nigeria on the 1st day of January, 1914.
The Supreme Court Ordinance 1914
One of the objectives of the amalgamation in 1914 was the unification of the legal systems of
the two administrations of Northern and Southern Nigeria. This objective was achieved by the
promulgation of the Supreme Court Ordinance which replaced all the laws pre-existing in the
amalgamated units. The Ordinance introduced into the country, subject to the usual reservation
of their being applied subject to existing local laws and in so far as local circumstances would
11
permit, the rules of the English common law, the doctrines of equity and statutes of general application which were in force in England on the 1st day of January, 1900.
In this way, the rules of the English common law, the principles of English Equity and Statutes
of general application which were in force in England on the 1st day of January, 1900 were introduced into the whole of Nigeria.
In 1952, the country adopted a quasi-federal Constitution whereby the country was divided into
three regions Eastern, Northern and Western Regions, with three legislative houses and a central Legislature in Lagos. This was followed up in 1954 with the regionalisation of the judiciary
to accord with the new constitutional arrangements which came into operation since 1952.
In pursuance of this regionalisation of the judiciary, a Federal Supreme Court, replacing the
West African Court of Appeal was set up by the Federal Constitution of 1954. A High Court
and Magistrates Courts were established in each of the three regions of Eastern, Northern and
Western Regions. The Federal Territory of Lagos (separated from the Western Region) was
also provided with a High Court and Magistrates Courts and thus treated as though it were a
region.
Provisions were also made in the Supreme Court Act, the High Court Laws and the Magistrates Courts Laws of the regions and Lagos incorporating the rules of the English common
law and the doctrines of equity among other things, into the respective laws to be administered
not only in the Federal Supreme Court, but also in the regional High Courts and the Magistrates Court. (In the Northern States, however, when the Magistrates sit in their civil jurisdiction they are designated as District Judges. See sections 3-7 of the District Courts Law (N.R.
No. 15 of 1960). Note that the word Law is the designation for a regional legislation, while
the word Ordinance was still retained for a federal legislation. Since independence, however,
all Ordinances enacted by the federal legislature became known as Acts.
Also, when the Mid-Western Region was carved out of the former Western Region and constituted into a separate region in 1963 by the Federal Parliament, Section 2 of the Mid-Western
Region (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1963, expressly made all existing law which were in
force in the Western Region immediately before the creation of the new region to be the law in
force in the new region until changed by the new Midwestern authority. The effect of this is the
direct absorption of the provisions of section 13 of the High Court Law, 1955 (W.R) and those
of section 13(1) of the Magistrates Courts Law, 1955 (W. R.) into the law (that is to say the
rules of common law, the doctrines of equity and the statutes of general application which were
in force in England on the 1st day of January, 1900) to be administered in the new Mid-Western
Region High Court and the Magistrates Courts.
Nigeria divided into 12 states
With effect from the 27th of May, 1967, the country was divided into twelve separate autonomous States by the States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 14. Three of these
new States, the East-Central, the South-Eastern and the Rivers States, were carved out of the
former Eastern Nigeria. While six others, the North-Western, the North-Central, Kano, the
North-Eastern, the Benue-Plateau and Kwara States were carved out of the former Northern
Nigeria. The former three administrative divisions of Badagry, Epe and Ikeja in the former
Western Nigeria were also carved out of the former Western Nigeria and merged with the Federal Territory of Lagos to form the new Lagos State. The other two were the Western and the
12
Mid-Western States.
Section 15 of the Decree No. 14 provides that all existing law in the region out of which a
state under this Decree is created shall have effect, subject to the modifications necessary to
bring it into conformity with the provisions of this section. Section 2(1) of the same Decree as
amended by Section 2 of the Constitution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Decree, 1967, also provides as follows:
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Decree relating to the existing law, every local
authority, court and other public body which immediately before the commencement of the
Decree exercised its functions within a state as herein constituted shall continue to exercise
those functions in the State.
The combined effect of these provisions in relation to the law to be administered within the jurisdiction of the courts in the new states is two-fold: (i) In relation to the law to be administered
within the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Magistrates Courts in the Western and Midwestern States, it is the law as contained in the High Court Laws and the Magistrates Courts
Law respectively in those two States prior to the creation of new States. (ii) In relation to the
laws to be administered within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Magistrates Courts in
each of the three Eastern and each of the six Northern States, it is the law respectively being
administered within the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Magistrates Courts in the former Eastern and former Northern Nigeria.
The position of the High Court and the Magistrates Courts in Lagos State is somewhat peculiar. In the case of the nine new states created from the former Eastern and Northern Nigeria,
each of the new states was an off-shoot of an existing region and carries with it to the new
state, the laws being administered within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Magistrates
Courts in its former region of origin, to the High Court and the Magistrates Courts of the new
State.
But in the case of Lagos State, Lagos was already a federal territory being administered by the
Federal Government and already had its own High Court and Magistrates Courts before the
creation of states. The direct effect of this is that the judicial divisions of the High Court and
the Magistrates Courts functioning in the three administrative divisions of Badagry, Epe and
Ikeja, which were carved out of the former Western Nigeria and merged with the federal territory of Lagos to form Lagos State, carried the law being administered within the jurisdiction of
their courts to their new Lagos State. The High Court of Lagos Act and the Magistrates Courts
Act now applied throughout the State. See section 2 of the Lagos State (Applicable Laws) Edict
1968 (No. 2 of 1968).
The country was further divided into 19 states by the States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree, 1976 and later into 21, 30 and now 36 states. Thus, we now have in Nigeria as
against the former five jurisdictions which exercised judicial functions, 37 (including Abuja)
separate jurisdictions performing the same functions.
How were the doctrines of Equity introduced into Nigeria?
13
3.2
Local Legislation in Nigeria dealing with Conflicts between customary law and
equity
Despite the introduction of the English law into Nigeria, the native laws and customs of the
people were not abolished. Rather, the Ordinances introducing such English law into Nigeria
expressly made provisions to the effect that these British established courts in Nigeria should
observe and enforce the observance of the peoples native laws and customs as contained in the
provisions of section 18 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1876. Subsequent local legislations since then
have continued to retain those provisions.
Now, every High Court in the country is enjoined to observe and enforce the observance of the
native laws and customs of the people in the area of its jurisdiction. There are, however, two
pre-requisites to be fulfilled before the court can observe and enforce the observance of any native law and custom.
1. The native law and custom must not be repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.
2. Such native law and custom must not be incompatible either directly or by implication with
any law for the time being in force. For a detailed study of the second pre-requisite, see Park
AEW: The Sources of Nigerian Law (1963) pp. 77-80.
The first pre-requisite is our focus here and will now be examined in detail.
3.2.1
Repugnancy doctrine and customary law
Origin
The origin of the doctrine appears obscure. It has been suggested that the origin of the doctrine
has little connection with English Law. Nor would it be correct to say that it is of Roman origin. It has been further suggested that it did not originate from either Aristotle or Cicero.
Rather, its origin has been traced to the Roman-canonical law, which had been prevalent in
most of the medieval European States. See Derrett, Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
(Changing Law in Developing Countries), edited by J. N. D. Anderson, p. 114.
However, the idea of the repugnancy doctrine was known to the early common law judges, although they were primarily concerned with adjudicating in accordance with the common law
and statutes. In many cases, they did not modify and supplement common law and statutes by
the exercise of judicial discretion or judicial equity (equity in the sense of what is fair and just
in the circumstances).
The early Chancery Court introduced equity and developed the technical rules of equity. However, the exercise of the early Chancery Jurisdiction was premised on equity, natural justice and
good conscience. Consequently, the British introduced the doctrine to their dependent territories and particularly those territories where the English common law, doctrines of equity had to
be administered side by side with local laws and customs. In this way, the repugnancy doctrine became part of our system through various local enactments.
The doctrine is of much importance in the ascertainment and application of our customary law.
Our courts are under a duty to enforce customary law so far as it is not repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. In some cases, courts are empowered to apply rules of natural
justice, equity and good conscience where the common law, statutes, doctrines of equity and
14
local laws are inapplicable. See for example, section 34(4) High Court Law, No. 8 of 1955 (N.
R.)
It has been argued that the phrase natural justice, equity and good conscience is capable of
being interpreted in two ways. (See Daniels, The Common Law in West Africa, p.267; Park,
A.E.W., (1963) The Sources of Nigerian Law, p. 69.)The first possible approach is to view the
phrase in totality as having only one meaning. The second possible approach is to split the
phrase into three and consider each part separately. (See Speed Ag. C.J. in Lewis v. Bankole
(1908) 1 N.L.R. 81.) However, attempt to examine the impossibility implicit in the second approach seems to be a fruitless academic exercise.
From all indications, it is clear that the phrase can only mean one thing, in that there is only one
common idea, which is expressed in three different phrases. The three phrases had sometimes
been used separately but they all originated from a common idea and they have all been used to
achieve the same result social justice in the administration of law.
The practical application of the doctrine in our system has not evinced any generally agreed
test. It is therefore futile to examine judicial decisions in which the operation of the doctrine
has been considered. One of the most authoritative pronouncements on the application of the
doctrine does not seem to have offered any satisfactory solution. See Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria (1931) A. C. 662 at 673. It does not go beyond stating that the court cannot
itself transform a barbarous custom into a milder one. If it still stands in its barbarous character, it must be rejected as repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience.
However, the test for the application of the doctrine cannot mean a reference to foreign law; for
it is the assent of the native community that gives a custom its validity, and therefore, barbarous or mild, it must be shown to be recognised by the native community whose conduct it is
supposed to regulate. See Eshugbayi Eleko v. Government of Nigeria (supra).
Perhaps an agreeable test in the application of the doctrine may be found if the purpose, which
the doctrine is meant to serve, is considered. The introduction of the doctrine into our system is
to remind the judges of their obvious duty, which is to accept such customary law as will promote, without being inconsistent with the economic, political and social developments of the
community within which the customary law is to operate.
These factors must necessarily be the condition precedent to the ascertainment and application
of any alleged rules of customary law. This brings us to a consideration of Parks view that:
there is no provision in the enactments which authorises the courts to look beyond the rule to
the results of its application in specific situations. (See The sources of Nigerian law, p. 73.)
This is suggestive of a mechanistic approach to the ascertainment and application of our customary law, particularly where as in many cases, it is almost impossible to determine whether a
rule of customary law is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience without assessing the result of its operation within the community.
The basic idea behind the introduction of the repugnancy doctrine into our system is that the
court, in the process of ascertaining and applying an alleged rule of customary law, should recognise and apply equity in its broad sense. That is, giving humane and liberal interpretation to
any alleged rule of customary law. It is through the recognition and application of such broad
principles of equity that English judges have been able to develop the common law to meet the
15
various needs of successive generations of English people.

Thus, in Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 Q.B.D. 354 at pp. 357, 358 Lord Esher said: In my opinion, any proposition the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is
wholly unreasonable and unjust, cannot be part of the common law of England. This proposition was cited with approval in the celebrated decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1931) A.C.
562 at pp.608, 609. A decision that revolutionised the English law of negligence.
Thus, an alleged rule of common law cannot be part of the common law if the result of its application is wholly unreasonable and unjust. Therefore, it seems to follow that the result of the
application of an alleged rule of customary law would first have to be examined; and if such an
examination of the result reveals unreasonableness and injustice, then the alleged rule is no part
of the common law.
4.0
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, section 32 subsections (1) to (3) of the Interpretation Act (cap. 123 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, 2004) provides that:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and except in so far as other provision is
made by any Federal Law, the common law of England and the doctrines of equity, together with the statutes of general application that were in force in England on the 1st
day of January, 1900, shall, in so far as they relate to any matter within the legislative
competence of the Federal legislature, be in force in Nigeria.
(2) Such Imperial laws shall be in force so far only as the limits of the local jurisdiction
and local circumstances shall permit and subject to any Federal law.
(3) For the purpose of facilitating the application of the said Imperial laws they shall be
read with such formal verbal alterations not affecting the substance as to names, localities, courts, officers, persons, moneys, penalties and otherwise as may be necessary to
render the same applicable to the circumstances.
Subject to local circumstances and to any local statute, the entire English Common Law and
Equity forms part of Nigerian Law. There is, however, a controversy as to whether the limitation to pre 1900 laws refers only to statutes of general application or whether it applies also to
the rules of Common Law and Equity. Clearly, only the pre 1900 English statutes are in force
in Nigeria.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have discussed how the doctrines of equity were introduced into Nigeria
through various ordinances and the controversy generated by the repugnancy doctrine in relation to customary law. In unit 3, we shall treat the relationship between equity and common
law.
6.0
Explain what you understand by the repugnancy doctrine and its effects on customary law.
7.0
Hackney J., (1987) Understanding Equity and Trusts; London: Fontana press
16

Park, A.E.W., (1963) The Sources of Nigerian Law
Volume 8 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
UNIT 3
THE RELATION BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction
3.2
Judicature Acts, 1873-1875
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, we considered how the doctrines of equity were formally received into the
Nigerian legal system through various statutory enactments.
The early Chancellors would have flatly denied any intention on their part to set up a separate
court in opposition to the courts of law. As we have seen, the rise of the Chancery as a separate
court administering different rules was purely accidental. Had the common law courts been able
to adapt common law rules to meet the social needs and expectation of the people, the Chancellors would have been confined to their traditional administrative duties and would not have altered the original course of English legal history. However, by default on the part of the common
law courts and a variety of other factor, the Chancellor and his original administrative functions
emerged as a separate court with a separate jurisdiction administering different rules. In this unit,
we will look at the relation between equity and common law.
2.0
OBJECTIVES
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
outline the opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction;

explain the Judicature Acts; and
explain the conflicts between law and equity.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction
14th Century
17
Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the court of Chancery became separate and distinct
from the King and his Council. Opposition to Chancerys extra-ordinary jurisdictions (because it was neither supported by statutes nor by the common law of the land) came from both
the Parliament and the common law courts. At that time, parliament had gained its independence from the King and his Council to become a law-making institution. Jealous of its newly
acquired law-making power, Parliament naturally resented the extra-ordinary jurisdiction exercised by the Chancery in the sense that such jurisdiction was neither supported by statutes nor
by the common law of the land.
On the other hand, common law courts became hostile to the Chancery jurisdiction on the pretext that the jurisdiction being exercised by the Chancery was unknown to the common law of
the land. However, it is clear that the hostility from the common law courts sprang from the
fact that their jurisdiction was being progressively eroded by the Chancery whose jurisdiction
was more progressive and more realistic.
For example, it was at this period that the Chancery devised a useful means for the enforcement
of trusts, the popularity of which over-shadowed the clamour for the abolition of Chancery jurisdiction.
It may be remarked here that common law courts did not take cognisance of the trusts on the
pretext that it might be used for fraudulent purposes and for the evasion of the law of the land.
On the contrary, Chancerys recognition and enforcement of the trust was in accord with human progress and aspirations at a time the English people were determined to move away from
the feudal age and its unpleasant incidents.
Coke and Ellesmere 16th Century
In the latter part of the sixteenth century, the rivalry between the common law courts and the
Chancery had reached a second and was nearing a decisive stage. The existence of the Chancery as a separate court administering rules of equity had become a fait accompli. Opposition
from the common law courts became more intensified particularly because of the Chancerys
power to issue common injunction to restrain the enforcement of judgments obtained from the
common law courts.
The decisive stage came when Coke became the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. He loathed
Chancery jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other prerogative courts that stood in opposition to
the jurisdiction of the common law courts. He claimed for the common law courts the power to
issue a writ of prohibition against Chancery jurisdiction for any interference with the judgments
or decisions of the common law courts. On the contrary, the Chancery firmly maintained that it
had long been within its jurisdiction to set aside common law judgments and to grant a more
equitable relief where such judgments were devoid of conscience or appeared oppressive.
The effect of these conflicting positions of the two courts of rival jurisdictions operating within
one legal system is not difficult to foresee in the administration of justice. The imminent anarchy that would have resulted if the situation were not arrested became real in the Earl of Oxfords case (1615) 1 Rep. Ch. 1.
The Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, claimed the power to set aside common law judgments on the
ground of equity and good conscience. Chief justice Coke of the common law courts insisted
18
that the Chancery had no right, either by statute or by any other law of the land, to set aside
common law judgments and that he would issue writ of prohibition against Chancerys interference with common law judgments. The matter in controversy came before James I, who after consulting with many other learned lawyers of the period, (including Bacon, who later became Lord Chancellor), decided in favour of Chancery jurisdiction.
Henceforth, the legal supremacy of equitable rules as administered by the Chancery court over
common law rules became a significant feature of the English legal system.
The common law lawyers did not take kindly to the legal supremacy of the court of Chancery
over the courts of common law and did not hesitate to initiate or support any move for the abolition of the Chancery court. Twice in the 17th century, the period of the commonwealth and the
period immediately after the revolution of 1688, the common law lawyers made abortive attempts to curtail Chancery jurisdiction and to revive the conflict hitherto resolved in favour of
the Chancery by James I.
Why was there so much opposition to the jurisdiction of the court of Chancery by the courts of
common law?
Effect of the Kings Decision

The kings decision in favour of the Chancery had a two-fold effect on the nature and character
of Chancery jurisdiction. In the first place, the jurisdiction of the court became more extensive.
Many litigants were attracted by the flexible and speedy judicial policy of the Court of Chancery. In course of time, the court was so much hard-pressed that it could not adequately cope
with its business. The court was poorly staffed and poorly organised; its procedure had become
complex and inefficient. The result was unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.
In the second place, the officials of the court became corrupt and incompetent. The power of
the court to issue injunctions became a source of iniquities. Litigants, with the active assistance
of the court made use of the power as delay tactics and to pervert the course of justice. Various
but unsuccessful attempts to reform the Chancery jurisdiction and its procedure were made before the later piecemeal reform of the 19th century. The position of the Chancery court and its
jurisdiction in the English legal system before the 19th century reform was neatly described by
Sir Carleton Allen in his book Law in the Making, 7th Ed. (1964) p.420 thus:
While equity (in the technical sense) has made important contribution to our law,
there is another and a darker side of the picture. The history of the Court of Chancery is
one of the least credible in our legal records. Existing nominally for the promotion of
liberal justice, it was for long corrupt, obstructive and reactionary, prolonging litigation
for the most unworthy motives and obstinately resisting all efforts at reform.
See further Potters Historical Introduction to English Law (4th Ed.) pp. 160-165.
19th Century Reforms
In the early part of the 19th century, two important factors called for reform and simplification
of legal procedure.
19
(i) The decadent and the unsatisfactory procedure and organisation of the Court of Chancery; and
(ii) The area of jurisdiction within which each of the superior courts, namely; court of common law and the court of Chancery was to operate, was not clearly defined. See
marquis of Waterford v. Knight (I 844) 11 C. 1. F. 653; 8 E.R. 1250.
If a litigant required redress both in equity and at common law, distinct actions in each jurisdiction were necessary. Again, there were cases lying on the frontier of both jurisdictions. If an
action was brought in one jurisdiction, it might be fought up to the House of Lords, only for
parties to discover that the action should have been brought in the other jurisdiction. Thus, litigation became expensive and there was unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. Certainly, such a situation is not a credit to any legal system.
Procedural Reforms
Before the statutory reforms of the second half of the 19th century, common law courts attempted some minor reforms of the conflicting system of procedure with a view to mitigating
the attendant hardships. They would apply rules of equity to cases before them whenever those
rules were in conflict or different from common law rules. This was to prevent separate proceedings, one in equity and the other at common law, from being brought in respect of the same
cause of action and thereby save litigants time and unnecessary expense. The bold attempt to
combine the administration of both rules into one system of procedure was a step in the right
direction. However, not much was achieved by this unification policy of the common law
courts since the attitude of the Chancery to matters before common law courts might not be
easily predictable.
The Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852, 1854 and 1860 empowered common law courts to
exercise certain jurisdictions originally peculiar and exclusive to the Chancery. For example,
common law courts were empowered to compel discovery of documents and interrogatories in
certain cases. They had a limited power to grant injunction and some other equitable reliefs
when such reliefs might have been granted by the Court of Chancery. On the other hand, the
Chancery Amendment Act of 1852 empowered the Courts of Chancery to exercise certain
common law powers. Thus in an equity suit, any relevant common law matters could be decided by the Chancery Courts. Before the Act, such matters would have been sent to the common law courts. In addition, the Court of Chancery was enabled to take evidence orally in the
open court. Originally, evidence in the Chancery was by bill. Lord Cairns Act, 1858, also empowered the court of Chancery in cases of contracts or torts to award damages in addition to or
in lieu of injunction, specific performance or any relevant equitable remedy.
The foregoing series of Acts did not go far enough to ameliorate all the evils inherent in the
dual system of administration of justice. This was clearly pointed out in the first report of the
Royal Commission that was appointed in 1867 to inquire into the system of administration of
justice and to suggest necessary reforms. According to the report, the alterations made by this
series of acts,
have no doubt introduced considerable improvements into the procedure both of
the common law and equity courts; but after a careful consideration of the subject,
and judging now with the advantage of many years experience of the practical
working of the system actually in force, we are of the opinion that the transfer or
blending off jurisdiction attempted to be carried out by recent Acts of Parliament,
even if it had been adopted to the full extent recommended by the Commissioners,
20
is not a sufficient or adequate remedy for the evils complained of, and would at
best have mitigated but not removed the most prominent of those evils.
In the light of the above, the Royal Commission recommended a complete fusion of the administration of justice. This was to be done by a consolidation of all the superior courts of law
and equity, together with the Courts of Probate, Divorce and Admiralty, into one court, to be
called Her Majestys Supreme Court, in which Court shall be vested all the jurisdiction which
is now exercisable by each and all the courts so consolidated.
3.2
Judicature Acts 1873-1875
The recommendations of the Royal Commission were substantially enacted as the Judicature
Acts 1873-1875. The Acts abolished all the existing superior courts and in their place, created a
Supreme Court of Judicature consisting of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal.
The High Court of Justice consists of three divisions
(i) The Kings Bench Division
(ii) The Chancery division; and
(iii) The Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.
The following causes and matters, hitherto within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chancery,
were assigned by section 34 of the Judicature Act, 1873, to the Chancery division because of
the long and expert experience of the Chancery in dealing with these matters. These are:
(i)
The administration of the estates of deceased persons
(ii) The dissolution of partnerships or the taking of partnership or other accounts
(iii) The redemption or foreclosure of mortgages
(iv) The raising of portions or other charges on land
(v) The sale and distribution of the proceeds of property subject to any lien or charge
(vi) The execution of trusts, charitable or private
(vii) The rectification or setting aside or cancellation of deeds or other written instruments
(viii) The specific performance of contracts between vendors and purchasers of real estates, including contracts for leases
(ix) The partition or sale of real estates
(x) The wardship of infants and care of infants estates.
In addition to the above specific cases, Parliament may also from time to time, assign any other
causes and matters to the Chancery division. See section 63, Conveyancing Act 1881; section
49 Settled Land Act 1882; and section 2 Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886.
The far-reaching effect of the Judicature Acts, 1873-1875 on the administration of justice is
that, since 1875 there is no longer dualism of courts exercising separate and conflicting jurisdictions. Instead, there has been a single system of courts (in three divisions) administering
both law and equity. Each division exercises all jurisdictions which is vested in the High Court
of Justice, thus every judge of the High Court of Justice, sitting in Chancery or Kings Bench,
is ordained to administer both equity and law concurrently.
All claims, obligations, defenses whether legal or equitable are cognisable in each of the three
divisions of the High Court of Justice. See section 24, Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875. In addition, the common injunction by means of which the Chancery Court used to exercise its supremacy over the court of common law is no longer relevant and was expressly abolished.
21
Section 24(5) of the Judicature Act, 1873 provides that no cause or proceeding at any time
pending in the High Court of Justice or before the Court of Appeal shall be restrained by prohibition or injunction, but every matter of equity in which an injunction against the prosecution
of any cause or proceeding might have been obtained before the passing of this Act may be relied on by way of defence thereto. Each of the divisions of the High Court of Justice is also
empowered to stay, by injunction, proceedings in any matter or cause before it. The most significant effect of the Judicature Acts is the consolidation of all the superior courts and the fusion of the administration of law and equity.
What is the effect of the Judicature Acts, 1873-1875 on the administration of justice?
Equity in the Nigerian Legal System
We have seen in the preceding unit the manner in which the English common law, doctrines of
equity and statutes of general application which were in force in England on the 1st of January,
1900 were incorporated into the Nigerian legal system. Note that the dual administration of law
and equity, which largely extent paralysed efficient administration of justice in England before
the Judicature Acts, was not introduced into the Nigerian legal system.
Though Nigeria adopted the English common law and the doctrines of English Chancery Court,
Nigeria antedated England in reforming the machinery to enforce them. The Supreme Court
Ordinance No. 11 of 9th April, 1863 established the Supreme Court of Her Majestys Settlement of Lagos, as a court of jurisdiction to be presided over by a Chief Magistrate or his duly
appointed deputy. It was a court of record empowered to exercise the same civil and criminal
jurisdiction and competence as Her Majestys Court of Queens Bench, the common pleas and
Exchequer in England. By Ordinance No. 9 of July 1864, the Court of Her Majestys Settlement of Lagos was also made a court of equity with powers corresponding to that of Lord
Chancellor in England.
Section 18 of the Ordinance No. 4 of 1876 also provided in a clearer term that law and equity
were to be administered concurrently so as to avoid any multiplicity of legal proceedings; and
in cases of conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with
reference to the same subject matter, the rules of equity should prevail. In this way, the Nigerian legal system was saved from the unhealthy rivalry between equity and common law which
characterised the English legal system for centuries.
Notwithstanding Nigerias later political and constitutional developments, the regional High
Courts (now State High Courts) are obliged to administer law and equity concurrently. See Law
of England (Applicable) Law; sec. 3 (cap. 60) 1959 of (Western Nigeria); High Court Law, No.
27 of 1955, sec. 14 of (Eastern Nigeria) now applicable in all the Eastern States; High Court
Law No. 8 of 1955, sections. 29-31 of (Northern Nigeria) now applicable to all the Northern
States. See also Supreme Court Ordinance sec. 18, (1943) Laws of Nigeria.
Under the Nigerian Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain matters.
With respect to the exercise of this original jurisdiction, the Federal Supreme Court Act, 1960
provides that the Supreme Court shall administer law and equity concurrently and in the same
manner as they are administered by Her Majestys High Court of Justice in England. Section
16(b) of the Act is similar in substance to section 24(5) of the Judicature Act 1873. It provides
22
that in every cause or matter pending before it, the Supreme Court shall grant, either absolutely
or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of
the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them in the cause or matter, so that, as far as possible, all matters in
controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined, and all multiplicity
of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided. Section 16(c) of the Act provides
that in all matters in which there was formerly or is in any conflict or variance between the
rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.
The above provision extends concurrent power to cases in law and equity but does not blur the
distinction between the principles of law and the rules of equity. While law and equity are to be
administered concurrently, the distinction between equity and common law is given firm recognition, hence the provision for the settlements of conflict that might have been existing in the
past or that may arise in the future between common law and equity. It is in this context and
that of the relevant provisions of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875 (the Act is a statute of general
application and therefore in force in Nigeria) that the settlement of conflicts between law and
equity will be examined.
4.0
CONCLUSION
Opposition to Chancerys jurisdictions came from both the Parliament and the common law
courts. The recommendations of the Royal Commission were substantially enacted as the Judicature Acts, 1873-1875. The Acts abolished all the existing superior courts and in their place
created a Supreme Court of Judicature. Though Nigeria adopted the English common law and
the doctrines of English Chancery Court, Nigeria antedated England in reforming the machinery to enforce them.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the opposition to the jurisdiction of chancery and the enactment of the Judicature Act. You should now be able to outline the opposition to the Chancery
Jurisdiction; and explain the Judicature Acts.
6.0
Outline the opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction.
7.0
23
UNIT 4
CONFLICTS BETWEEN EQUITY AND LAW
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Effect of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875
3.2
Fusion
3.2.1 Fusion of Rules/Administration
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, we considered the relation of equity and common law. In this unit, we will
further consider the conflict between equity and the common law and the effect of the passage of
the Judicature Acts 1873-1875.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Explain the effect of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875; and
(ii) Explain how law was fused with equity.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Effect of the Judicature Acts, 1873-1875
Before the Judicature Act of 1873, there had been certain practical cases in which the application
of common law rules and the application of rules of equity with reference to the same matter produced conflicting results. For example, before the Act, the attitude of equity with regard to the effect of stipulations as to the time in contracts could not be reconciled with that of the common
law. Similarly, equity rules as to the custody and education of infants were different from relevant
common law rules. In addition, equity and common law had long maintained a different attitude
to the important question of assignments of choses in action. These and some other particular
types of conflict were resolved by section 25, sub-sections 1-10 of the Act. In some cases, rules of
equity were made to prevail over those of the common law (subsections 2, 7, 10), in others, common rules (neither those of equity nor common law) were evolved. See subsection 8.
In addition to the settlement of particular conflicts, section 25(11) of the Judicature Act also provides in a general term, for the settlements of conflicts which may arise in the fused administration of common law and equity. Generally in all matters not here-in-before particularly mentioned, in which there is conflict between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with
reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail. This provision is very much similar
to section 16(c) of the Federal Supreme Court Act and other similar High Court Laws of the various States.
24
The scope of the section has come for judicial consideration in the following cases.
(i) Liability of an Executor for assets
Before the Judicature Act of 1873, the common law rule was that an executor was liable for the
loss of his testators assets when they had come into his hands. Whether the loss was accidental or
as a result of wilful default was immaterial. See Crosse v. Smith (1806) 7 East. 246. On the contrary, equity took a more lenient view; an executor would not be liable for the loss of the testators
assets, without default in him.
These two varying positions of common law and equity with reference to the same matter came
for consideration in Job v. Job (1877) 6 Ch.D. 562. Referring to the common law position, Jessel
M.R. said: The rule there laid down is, however, as I have already intimated, not the rule now,
even at law, for the Judicature Act, 1873, provides by section 25 subsection 11, that where there
is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference
to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.
The rule at law as well as in equity now is that, an executor or administrator is in the position of
gratuitous bailee who cannot be charged with the loss of his testators assets without wilful default. Though the Master of the Rolls adopted a common rule, this common rule was in fact a
rule of equity which was held to have prevailed over the common law rule because of the Judicature Act of 1873.
(ii) Agreement for a lease
The meaning of conflict or variance within section 25(11) of the Judicature Act is also illustrated by the decision in Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch.D. 562. By a written agreement, Lonsdale agreed to grant a seven years lease of a cotton mill to Walsh. The rent was to be payable in
advance if demanded. Walsh entered and took possession without any lease having been granted.
Walsh, however, for some time, paid the rent in arrear. Later, Lonsdale, in accordance with the
agreement, demanded a years rent in advance. Walsh refused to meet this demand. Lonsdale
thereby distrained. Walsh brought an action claiming damages for unlawful distress and for an injunction and for specific performance.
Walshs claim or damages for unlawful distress was on the ground that he was a yearly tenant at
law, having paid his rent with reference to a year and that to justify a distress there must be a legal tenancy and rent in arrear. There can be no such thing as an equitable distress. Distress is a legal remedy, and here the payment of rent is evidence of a legal tenancy with a rent not payable by
anticipation. The provision in the written agreement, as to rent being paid beforehand is not applicable to the tenancy hereby created, since the rent is at so much per loom run, and it cannot be
told till the end of the year what is that number of looms run.
In other words, since the rent can be assessed only after ascertaining the number of looms used,
the yearly tenancy created by the act of the parties cannot be with rent payable in areas, nonpayment of which would justify the legal remedy of distress. On the contrary, Lonsdale contended
in his defence that the provision in the written agreement for the payment of rent in advance was
enforceable since the written lease was one of which equity would decree specific performance,
the effect of which would convert the written lease to a formal lease as if the lease had been
granted at law. Delivering the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Jessel M.R. said:
There is an agreement for a lease under which possession has been given. Now since the
25
Judicature Act the possession is held under the agreement. There are not two estates as
there were formerly, one estate at common law by reason of the payment of the rent from
year to year, and an estate in equity under the agreement. There s only one court and the
equity rules prevail in it. The tenant holds under an agreement for a lease. He holds, therefore, under the same terms in equity as if a lease had been granted, it being a case in which
both parties admit that relief is capable of being given by specific performance. That being
so, he cannot complain of the exercise by the landlord of the same rights as the landlord
would have had if a lease had been granted. On the other hand, he is protected in the same
way as if a lease had been granted; he cannot be turned out by six months notice as a tenant from year to year. He has a right to say, I have a lease in equity, and you can only reenter if I have committed such breach of covenant as would if a lease had been granted
have entitled you to re-enter according to the terms of a proper proviso for re-entry. That
being so, it appears to me that being a leasee in equity he cannot complain of the exercise
of the right of distress merely because the actual parchment has not been signed and
sealed.
In Savage v. Sarrough (1937) 13 N.L.R. 141, the plaintiffs were the owners of land and buildings
situate at 6 Balogun Square, Lagos. The defendant obtained from the plaintiffs a written agreement, not under seal, of lease of property for five years. The plaintiffs, on receiving a higher offer
for the lease of the property brought this action to set aside the agreement, contending, inter alia,
that the agreement for the lease not being under seal, was void. Adopting the rule in Walsh v.
Lonsdale that since 1873 where there is conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the
rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity should prevail. Kingdom, C.J. at page 145 said: In equity, the lease is deemed to have been effectively granted, and
for practical purposes, the parties are in the same position as if the lease were valid at law.
Similarly, in Chidiak v. Coker (1954) 14 WACA 506, the West African Court of Appeal observed
that: since the Judicature Act, 1873, the lesse may be liable upon an implied tenancy on the like
terms and conditions as those expressed in the lease, if the incompletely executed lease is capable
of operating as an agreement for a lease which could be specifically enforced, and the tenant who
had entered thereunder would be bound in equity by the covenant to repair.
However, as Maitland remarked in his lecture,
an agreement for a lease is not equal to a lease. An equitable right is not equivalent to a legal
right; between the contracting parties an agreement for a lease may be as good as a lease; just
so between the contracting parties an agreement for the sale of land may serve as well as
completed sale and conveyance. But introduce the third party and then you will see the difference. I take a lease; my lessor then sells the land to X; notice or no notice my lease is good
against X. I take a mere agreement for a lease, and the person who has agreed to grant the
lease then sells and conveys to Y, who has no notice of my merely equitable right. Y is not
bound to grant me a lease. See Maitlands Equity (Brunyate Ed.) 1949, pp.156-159.
In Ibeziako v. Chinekwe (1972) 2 E.C.S.L.R. 71 at 79, though Walsh v. Lonsdale (supra) was followed, Egbuna J., did not loose sight of the fact that it is an essential condition that the agreement
be found to be an agreement of which a court of Equity would decree specific performance. For
example, specific performance of such agreement will not be granted where the plaintiff is guilty
of laches or where he has not come to equity with clean hands.
(iii) Joint Undertaking
The supremacy of equitable rules over common law rules under section 25(11) of the Judicature
26
Act, is also illustrated by the decision in Lowe v. Dixon (1885) 16 QBD 455. At common law,
where two or more persons jointly undertook to be sureties of a debt, and one of them became insolvent, the remaining solvent sureties were not bound to pay the share of the liability which the
insolvent surety would have had to pay had he been solvent. On the contrary, the rule in equity is
that the solvent sureties are in addition to their own share of the liability, also liable for the share
of the insolvent co-surety. The conflicting rules came for consideration in Lowe v. Dixon (supra)
and it was held that the equitable rule now prevails in accordance with the Judicature Act.
(iv) Variation of Deed
Another illustration of the effect of section 25(11) of the Judicature Act 1873 on the conflict between law and equity is the decision of Swift, J. in Berry v. Berry (1929) 2 KB 316. In that case,
there was a deed of separation in which the husband covenanted to pay a monetary allowance to
his wife. Later there was another agreement in writing, but not under seal, by which the parties
agreed to vary the terms of the deed regarding the allowance. The wife brought this action claiming arrears of allowance under the original terms of the deed. The court accepted the claim of the
plaintiff that at common law a covenant in a deed cannot be varied by a subsequent written
agreement not under seal. See also West v. Blakeway (1841) 10 LJ (CP)173, 177.
However, the Courts of equity have always allowed the rescission or variation by a simple contract of a contract under seal and such variation or rescission is good defence to an action on the
deed. That being the state of the law and of the equitable practice, section 25(11) of the Judicature
Act, 1875 provides that the rule of equity should now prevail and the action was dismissed. This
variation rule was extended in the High Trees Case (1947) KB 130 and in Ajayi v. Briscoe
(1964) 3 All ER 556.
______________________________________________________________________
At common law, can a covenant in a deed be varied by a subsequent written agreement?
______________________________________________________________________
3.2
Fusion
The effect of the Judicature Acts on the relation between law and equity is not free from controversy. With effect to the provision of the Acts dealing with settlement of conflicts between law
and equity, there are two views of the matter.
(i)
That there is no appreciable conflict between law and equity and therefore section
25(11) of the Judicature Act 1873 is redundant.
(ii)
That rules of equity do conflict with rules of common law and that such cases of conflict are to be settled in accordance with section 25(11).
Maitland, the chief exponent of the no conflict view argues forcefully that the conflict between
law and equity was only jurisdictional and has never been of any vital functional significance. He
observes that:
it is important that even at the very outsetwe should form some notion of the relation
which existed between law and equity in the year 1875. And the first thing that we have to
observe is that this relation was not one of conflict. Equity had come not to destroy the
law, but to fulfil it. Every jot and every title of the law was to be obeyed, but when all this
had been done something might yet be needful, something that equity would require.
See Lectures on Equity op.cit. at 16-18, 153.
27
It is his view that since the jurisdictional conflict had been removed by the Judicature Acts, the
day will come when lawyers will cease to inquire whether a given rule be a rule of equity or a rule
of common law: suffice it that it is a well established rule administered by the High Court of Justice. See further Langdell, Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction 1 Harv.L.Rev. 58 (1887); Classification of Rights and Wrongs, 13 Harv. L. Rev. 673 (1900).
On the contrary, Hohfeld maintains that while a large part of the rules of equity harmonise with
the various rules of law, another large part of the rules of equity, more especially those relating to
the so-called exclusive and auxiliary jurisdiction of equity, conflict with legal rules and, as a matter of substance, annul or negative the latter pro tanto. See Fundamental Legal Conceptions
The relation Between Equity and Law 11 Mich. L.Rev. 537 (1913).
Chief Justice Stone, sometime the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is also of the
view that:
When one reflects that equity often restrained the prosecution of actions at law, and that
the exercise of a large part of its jurisdiction involved for all practical purposes a negation
of the rights of the legal owner, it seems extra-ordinary that any writer should ever have asserted broadly that there was no conflict between the doctrines of law and equity, and that
anyone should have found it necessary or desirable to have written a book to assert the contrary doctrine That there was a conflict in that equity often adopted a different doctrine
other than that of the law courts and based its action upon it, does not now seem fairly open
to question. See Book Review; 18 Col. L. Rev. 97 (1918). See further, Spence, The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (1846) p.326.
It is true that the Judicature Acts removed the jurisdictional conflict between law and equity, it is
also true that section 25 goes further to settle both particular and general conflicts between the
rules of law and the rules of equity. Section 25 (11) which deals with the settlement of general
conflict is rarely resorted to, but, as Maitland himself admitted, the provision had been applied to
settle some substantive conflicts and variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law.
Thus, the provision becomes operative where the application of the equitable rule deprives the legal rule of some material effect. In addition, the provision becomes operative when the remedy
provided in equity involves a negation of the exercise of a right or power which would otherwise
be exercisable at law. This is illustrated by a string of cases on the revocability of licences at law
and in equity. See the following: Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. (1915) 1 KB 1; Winter Garden
Theatre (London) Ltd. v. Millenium Productions Ltd. (1948) AC 173; Thompson v. Park (1944)
KB 408, and Evershed, Equity after Fusion Federal or Confederal, JSPTL 171, (1948).
The premise of the argument in favour of no conflict doctrine is that equity has never been a
self-sufficient system of law. It is a collection of appendixes between which there is no very
close connexion, at best equity is supplementary to law. It is further argued that when the application of a rule of equity brings about a result the effect of which renders ineffective the enforcement of common law rule, there is no conflict in the sense that the rule of equity becomes the operative law. This does not appear to be a realistic approach to the conflict between law and equity.
For example where the existence of a right depends on law, equity does not destroy the legal right
so granted, but equity can prevent the exercise of this right which would otherwise be exercisable
at law. In this case, there is conflict and equity prevails.
_________________________________________________________________
28
Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Discuss.
__________________________________________________________________
3.2.1 Fusion of Rules or Fusion of Administration

It remains to mention the perennial controversy on the full effect of the Judicature Acts on the
relation between common law and equity. The view is widely held that since the Judicature Acts,
there has been only one system of courts administering a common rule which is neither rule of
equity nor rule of common law. In essence the exponents of this view claim that, in addition to
the fusion of administration of justice, the acts also blurred the distinction between rules of
common law and rules of equity and that these two systems of rules have been replaced by a
common rule. In Nelson v. Larholt (1948) 1 KB 339, 343; Denning, J. (as he then was) said: It
is no longer appropriate to draw a distinction between law and equity. Principles have now to
be stated in the light of their combined effect. See similar pronouncement of Denning L.J. in
High Trees Case (1947) KB 130, 135; Errington v. Errington (1952) I KB 290 and Hanbury,
Modern Equity (8th Ed.) 1962, pp. 19-21.
On the contrary, there is the view that the effect of the Judicature Acts is merely the creation of a
common court for the administration of law and equity and not a fusion of law and equity; and
that where the principles of the two conflicts, the principles of equity prevail. In Pugh v. Heath
(1882) 7 App. Cas. 235, 237 (one of the earliest decisions on the effect of the Judicature Acts on
the relation between law and equity) Lord Cairns observes: The court is now not a court of law
or a court of equity; it is a court of complete jurisdiction, and if there were a variance between
what, before the Judicature Act, a court of law and a court of equity would have done, the rule of
the court of equity must now prevail.
Much as it is desirable to have a body of common rules from the amalgams of the principles of
law and of equity, it is preposterous now to suggest that there has been a fusion of the two systems since the Judicature Acts. The distinction between the equitable ownership of a beneficiary
and the legal ownership of a trustee under a trust is still well recognised. The maxim that where
equities are equal the law prevails is of great significance in the determination of priority between a legal and an equitable interest in the same property. See Ajose v. Harworth (1925) 6
NLR 98; Lydia Erinosho v. Owokoniran (1965) NMLR 479; Folashade v. Durosola (1961) 1 All
NLR 87; Barclays Bank v. Olofintuyi (1961) WNLR 252.
There may be cases where the application of the conflict or variance provision would give rise to
common rules. (Such as in Job v. Job (supra); Lowe v. Dixon, (supra). This is not a sufficient justification for the view that there has been a fusion of law and equity. See further, a scholarly discussion of this topic in Nathans Equity Through the Cases (4th Ed.) 1960, pp. 17-20.
The provision of section 16 of the Federal Supreme Court Act, No. 12 of 1960, unlike its counterpart in section 25(11) of the Judicature Act 1873 gives a clear recognition to the distinction
that would continue to exist between the rules of law and the rules of equity. Among other
things, it provides that in all matters in which there was formerly or is any conflict or variance
between the rules of equity and the rules of common law with reference to the same matter, the
rules of equity shall prevail. This provision anticipates the development of new equities which
may conflict or be at variance with law. However, this does not mean that judges should consciously invert new rules of equity for the purpose of superseding the old established rules of
law. See Evershed, The Influence of Remedies on Rights 6 CLP 1,12 (1953).
29
The observation of Lord Evershed on the full effect of the Judicature Acts on the relation between law and equity is instructive. He said when you speak of fusion you may mean one of
two things. You may mean that the component parts disappear altogether in the new entity that is
created, or you may mean that they have combined for particular purposes or have become subject to some single control, though retaining their separate and original individualities. See Equity After Fusion, Federal or Confederal, (1948) JSPTL (NS) Vol. I p. 171 at 175.
Evidently, experience and realities are in favour of the latter meaning of fusion in the context of
the relation between law and equity since 1873. In Joseph v. Lyons (1884) 15 QBD 280, Cotton
L.J. disagreed with the view that the Judicature Acts 1873-1875 abolished the distinction between legal and equitable principles. In the same case, Lindley L.J. observed as follows:
Reliance was placed upon the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873, 1875
and it was contended that the effect of them was to abolish the distinction between law and equity. Certainly that is not the effect of those statutes; otherwise they would abolish the distinction
between trustee and cestui que trust.
In the circumstance it is difficult to resist the view of Lord Watson that The main object of the
Judicature Act was to enable the parties to a suit to obtain in that suit and without the necessity of
resorting to another court, all remedies to which they are entitled in respect of any legal or equitable claim or defence properly advanced by them, so as to avoid a multiplicity of legal proceedings The Act of 1873 deals with the remedies and not with rights of parties litigant. It was not
intended to affect and does not affect the quality of the rights and claims which they bring into
court and submit to the judgment of the court, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants. See Ind,
Coope and Co. v. Emmerson (1887), 12 App. Cas. 300 at 308.
Thus, as Ashbumer put it, the Acts conferred upon one and the same tribunal the jurisdiction
which, before the Act, was exercised separately by the Courts of Equity and the Courts of Common Law. The provisions of the Act prevent any collision between the principles by which these
courts before the Act were respectively guided. A cause of action which before the Act was an
exclusive preserve of the Chancery jurisdiction, can now be lawfully adjudicated upon by any
division of the unified High Court of Justice; the apportionments of suits between the different
divisions is based upon considerations of convenience and not upon differences of jurisdiction.
See Ashbuners Principles of Equity (2nd Ed.) p. 17.
Where a man before the Judicature Act became entitled by the same cause of action to two distinct remedies, one of which he could only pursue in a Court of Common Law and the other only
in Chancery, he can and must since the Act pursue both his remedies in one proceeding; and if
the remedies are cumulative (for example, damages for trespass and an injunction) the same
court in one proceeding will give him both, while, if they are alternative, the court will give him
that remedy which is adapted to the circumstances of his case.
But the two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do
not mingle their waters. The distinction between legal and equitable claims-between legal and
equitable defences-and between legal and equitable remedies-has not been broken down in any
respect by recent legislation. The requirements necessary to sustain before the Act, legal and equitable claims, legal and equitable defences, legal and equitable remedies, are not altered or affected in any way by the Act.
4.0
CONCLUSION
30
In addition to the settlement of particular conflicts, section 25(11) of the Judicature Act also
provides in a general term, for the settlements of conflicts which may arise in the fused administration of common law and equity. The provision becomes operative where the application of
the equitable rule deprives the legal rule of some material effect and when the remedy provided
in equity involves a negation of the exercise of a right or power which would otherwise be exercisable at law.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the conflicts between equity and common law. You should
now be able to: enumerate the effect of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875; and explain how law
was fused with equity.
6.0
Briefly explain how law was fused with equity.
7.0
UNIT 5
NATURE OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS I
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Equitable Rights
3.2
Enforcement of judgements
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we considered the conflict between equity and the common law and the effect of
the passage of the Judicature Act 1873-1875. The nature of equitable rights which evolved from
the recognition of equity jurisdiction as a second force in the Nigerian legal system will be considered in this unit.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
Define equitable rights;

Differentiate between rights in personam and rights in rem; and
31
(iii)
Explain how judgements are enforced.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Equitable Rights: Rights in Personam or in Rem
The early development of equity jurisdiction owes much to the maxim Equity acts in personam.
Of all the maxims, none has a more interesting history, none speaks more eloquently of the vortex of jealousy, antagonism and rivalry in which Chancery first formulated its doctrines, than
Equity acts in personam. The influence of this maxim upon commentators on equity has been
profound. It is the cornerstone of the theory which treats equitable interests as purely in personam; naturally enough, Ames regarded it as the key to the mastery of equity. See Barbour, The
Extra-Territorial Effect of the Equitable Decree (1918-19) 17 Mich. L. Rev. 527-528.
While it is too late to explain modern equity jurisdiction on the basis of the medieval maxims of
equity because of the marked differences in the society that gave birth to these maxims and that
of today, yet the nature of equitable rights and interests is buried in the interstices of the maxim
Equity acts in personam, hence an attempt to discuss the nature of equitable rights and interests
in the light of modern development may not be intelligible if adequate reference is not made to
the maxim in so far as the maxim affects both the origin and the later development of Chancery
jurisdiction.
The early Chancellors emphasised the theory of the maxim for two reasons.
(i)
To prevent a real conflict between the Chancery and the common law courts.
(ii)
To avoid a rivalry that might have otherwise resulted in the abolition of the Chancery
jurisdiction which was then in its very early stage of development.
The chancellors employed the maxims in two ways both complementary to the development of
Chancery jurisdiction, but at the expense of the already established common law jurisdiction.
With regard to the equity jurisdiction being exercised by the Chancery, the Chancellors maintained that unlike the common law jurisdiction which proceeded upon set and fixed principles,
equity proceeded upon the conscience of litigants in the exercise of their common law rights. The
aim of the Chancerys equitable jurisdiction was not to override common law rights. On the contrary, it was to ensure that common law rights were not exercised in an unconscionable manner.
However, it must be noted that the Chancery would not hesitate to invoke this same maxim Equity acts in personam (to ensure that common law rights were exercised in accordance with equitable principles) even if the ultimate result of such invocation would be to deprive common law
rights of their material and legal effects. On the strength of this maxim, the chancery enforced
rights created later under its exclusive jurisdiction as well as other equitable remedies classified
as either concurrent or auxiliary jurisdiction in absolute defiance of corresponding remedies at
law. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the theory of the maxim seems to have given much support
and credence to the much contested proposition that equitable rights and interests are merely
rights in personam.
It would serve no useful purpose to engage in this perennial controversy. It is now a matter of
practical reality that equitable rights may either be in personam or in rem, depending on whether
the emphasis is on the substance of the equitable rights in question or on the means or procedure
by which these equitable rights are enforced. In the words of Barbour,
The paradoxical contradiction between the substance of the rights equity en32
forces and the means of their vindication is misleading. When a judge sitting in
equity today declares that a foreign decree ordering the conveyance of land creates no obligation but merely a duty owed by the defendant to the court, he is assuming that equity has made no progress since the time of Coke. See Barbour,
op.cit at 528.
Furthermore, the controversy is no longer of such significance because of the fusion of the administration of the rules of common law and rules of equity.
The Traditional View
There is an element of truth in the traditional view that because of the maxim, Equity acts in
personam which underlies the fabric of early equity jurisdiction, equitable rights are logically
(not necessarily) rights in personam in the sense that they are enforceable only against the conscience of specified persons.
Long ago, Knightly, sergeant-at-law said- A decree is not like a judgment in the Kings Bench
or Common Bench, for such a judgment binds the right of the party; but a decree does not bind
the right, but only the person to obedience, so that if the party will not obey, then the Chancellor
may commit him to prison until he will obey, and this is all that the Chancellor can do. See Y.B.
27 Hen. VIII 15, p1. 6 (Ch. 1536).
In 1883, Lord Selbourne emphasised that the Courts of Equity in England are and always have
been, Courts of conscience, operating in personam and not in rem. See Eving v. Orr Eving
(1883) 9 App. Cas. 34 at 40. See also Hart v. Sansom (1884) 1 10 U.S. 151, 154. The import of
these pronouncements is to circumscribe equitable jurisdiction and the nature of equitable rights
and interests in terms of the means by which these rights and interests can be enforced. See J.R.
v. M.P. (1459) Y.B. 37. In essence, since equitable rights and interests are in personam, equitable
decree binds the person to obedience on pains of imprisonment, the decree does not operate on
the subject matter in dispute.
3.2
Enforcement of judgements
At common law, whenever a judgement was given for damages for a tort or a breach of contract
and the defendant refused to pay, one of the writs of execution could be issued against the property of the defendant. The effect was either to put the plaintiff into possession or to have the
property sold and the proceeds paid to the plaintiff in satisfaction of his claims against the defendant. The title so obtained by the purchaser was good against the defendant. Thus, the procedure
for the enforcement of a judgment of the common law courts was in rem.
In equity, if the defendant failed or refused to comply with an equitable decree, all that the Chancellor could do was to order the imprisonment of the defendant for contempt. The Chancery had
no power to deprive the defendant of his property, because courts of equity have always operated
on conscience and not on subject-matter in dispute. In this manner, equitable decree of specific
performance would operate only upon the person of the defendant and not upon the property that
was the subject-matter in dispute.
For example, where in an equitable action for specific performance of contract for the sale of
land, the defendant was ordered to convey the piece of land to the plaintiff, and he refused to
comply with the order, the Chancery would proceed to imprison the defendant for contempt. The
33
Chancery would not by itself execute the conveyance.

Jurisdiction Over Property Situated in a Foreign Country
The rule is well established that no court in Nigeria has jurisdiction to entertain an action in
which the matter in dispute is to determine the title to, or ownership of land which is situated
outside the courts jurisdiction.
In Jadesola v. Akinola (1932) 11 NLR 108 at 109, Webber J. said: I can find no authority for the
proposition that proceedings dealing with the ownership of land consequent upon execution, such
land being outside this Courts jurisdiction, can be dealt with by this court issuing the execution,
nor in my opinion can any rule of court confer such jurisdiction.
The limitation on the jurisdiction of the court in this matter can be explained on the basis of principle of effectiveness. First, the physical control of the land is within the power of the country in
which the land is situated. Secondly, it is the lex situs of the land which determines the title to or
ownership of the land. See Hicks v. Powell (1869) 4 Ch. App. Cas. 741; Norton v. Florence
(1877) 7 Ch.D 332. Re Hawthorne (1883) Ch.D. 743. B.SA Co. v. Conpanhia de Mocambique
(1893) A.C. 602.
A court of Equity will, however, in certain cases, exercise its jurisdiction in respect of matters
affecting foreign land or land situated outside its jurisdiction. The basis for the exercise of this
jurisdiction is to be found in the maxim Equity acts in personam. See Penn v. Baltimore (1750)
27 ER 847. Specific performance was decreed in respect of articles executed in England concerning boundaries of two provinces in America, because the conscience of the party was bound by
this agreement; and being within the jurisdiction of the court, which acts in personam the court
may properly decree it as an agreement. The relevant equitable decree is enforceable against the
person of the defendant who must be within the jurisdiction of the court.
In British Bata Shoe Co. v. Melikan (1956) 1 FSC 100, the proceedings concerned an appeal
from an order of a Judge of the High Court of Lagos striking out the plaintiffs action seeking
specific performance of a contract for the assignment of the respondents leasehold property situated at Aba in the former Eastern Region, on the ground that the High Court of Lagos had no jurisdiction to try the case. This action was filed in the former Supreme Court in December 1954.
At that time there was only one Supreme Court, constituting one jurisdiction for the whole of Nigeria.
The action came on for trial on the 9th of January, 1956. On the 1st of January, 1956, the Supreme
Court of Nigeria had ceased to exist and was replaced by five independent High Courts, each exercising jurisdiction within its own territorial limits. The two High Courts concerned were the
High Court of Lagos exercising jurisdiction within the former Federal Territory of Lagos where
the parties to this action were residing and the High Court of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria where the property in dispute was situated. It was evident that each of the regions of the Federation, with its separate High Courts, was like a foreign country to other regions.
The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the action being one for specific performance of a contract which calls upon the court to act in personam in equity against the respondent/defendant, the High Court of Lagos had jurisdiction as the parties were residing within its
jurisdiction. Jibowu, Ag. FCJ, delivering the judgment of the court agreed that the claim for specific performance of a contract is an action calling upon the court to exercise its equitable juris34
diction in personam over persons who are resident within its jurisdiction. He observed that the
position of the High Court of Lagos must be likened to that of the English High Court of Justice
with regard to land outside its territorial jurisdiction. Since the High Court of Lagos is empowered to administer law and equity, it has jurisdiction in cases of specific performance of contracts
between persons resident within its jurisdiction. Although the land to which the contracts relate
may be outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Similarly, the court will entertain jurisdiction to administer foreign assets, real or personal, of a
testator who died domiciled in a foreign country, provided the executors or trustees are within the
jurisdiction of the court. See Ewing v. Ewing (supra). The jurisdiction also covers the enforcement of a trust the subject matter of which is foreign land. See Rochefoucauld v. Boustead (1897)
1 Ch. 196.
In Ayinule v. Abimbola (1957) LLR 41, the High Court of Lagos in the exercise of its equitable
jurisdiction restrained the defendant, who was within the jurisdiction from doing an act outside
the jurisdiction. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was making use of his (plaintiffs) Registered trade name in Ghana. He sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from
repeating this alleged unlawful act. The question was whether the court had jurisdiction to restrain a defendant who was within the jurisdiction from doing an act outside the jurisdiction.
It was evident that the defendants action clearly threatened legal injury to the plaintiffs business
interests, and that an injunction would issue in terms of the plaintiffs application if the acts
complained of were committed in this country. The court held that an order is injunction is directed to the person to be restrained and is an order in personam. In Ijaola v. Banjo (1958) LLR
58, Dickson J. said:
In my view the present action concerns land, and as we have already seen, the land is situated in the Western Region. This being so, has this court jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim? It is hardly necessary for me to say that the jurisdiction of the High Court
of Lagos is confined only to the Federal Territory of Lagos. Equity acts in personsam over
persons resident within its jurisdiction, and in certain cases the court would entertain an
action respecting foreign land.
It therefore follows that if the person to be restrained is within the reach and amenable to the
processes of the court, an injunction may be ordered regardless of the locality of the act to be restrained.
The principle requiring the presence of the defendant within the jurisdiction has been further explained in Tozier v. Hawkins (1885) 15 QBD 680, and in In re Liddells Settlement trusts (1936)
1 Ch. 365. Physical presence of the defendant within the jurisdiction may not be necessary where
the defendant has been properly served in accordance with the relevant rules of court. Once this
is done, so far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned, the defendant, who need not be resident within the jurisdiction, is precisely in the same position as a person who is physically present within the jurisdiction. See Romer LJ in In re Liddells Settlement Trusts (supra) at 374.
Generally, the exercise of this jurisdiction depends on the existence between the parties to the
suit of some personal obligation. Such personal obligation may arise out of contract, (express or
implied), fiduciary relationship or fraud, or other conduct which, in the view of a court of equity
would be unconscionable. The question of jurisdiction in these matters does not depend on the
lex situs, where immovable property is involved, or on the law of the place where the act, restrained or commanded, is to be effected. See Dechamps v. Miller (1908) 1 Ch. 856 at 863.
35
Modern Development
The foregoing bears apparent testimony to the view that an equitable decree is directed against
the person and that it only binds the person to obedience, it does not operate upon the subject
matter in dispute. See J.R v. M.P. (1459) Y.B. 37 Hen. VI. fol. 13. pl.3. From this standpoint, equitable rights are said to be rights in personam. This proposition may not be challenged in as
much as the methods of enforcement of equitable decrees are not to be related to the principal or
essential objects of the decrees.
An examination of the main or principal object of an equitable decree which compels or induces
a person, on pains of imprisonment, to comply with the terms of the decree, reveals that equity in
fact, operates upon the subject matter in dispute. Where a vendor complies with a decree of specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, although the decree was directed against the
person of the vendor, it has, in fact, operated upon the subject matter in dispute. The vendor has
been compelled to convey the land, the subject matter of the contract, to the purchaser in accordance with the terms of the decree.
Furthermore, subsequent developments, judicial and statutory, affecting equity jurisdiction has
enlarged the functional significance of the maxim Equity acts in personam. As Timlin J., observed: In the early stages of equity jurisprudence decreed were enforced only in personam
This rule has long since given way to the paramount rule that equity may in all cases frame its
decrees as to make them effective to do equity, and now the forms of equitable relief are as various as the transactions investigated and regulated in equity. See McMillan v. Berber Asphalt Co.
(1912) 151 Wis. 48.
Writs of Assistance
In order that equitable decrees should not be rendered illusory, the Chancery introduced various
equitable writs, the principal object of which was to get at the specific res, that is, the subject
matter in dispute. About the middle of the seventeenth century, the developed equity system introduced writs of assistance by which a court of equity empowered the sheriff to put the plaintiff
into possession of the subject matter in dispute. See Vanlore v. Lidall (1624), Equity, Cases and
Materials; Chafee and Re (1958, 4th Ed.) p.41.
If the decree were for land, and the party remained obstinate in prison, the court granted
an injunction for yielding up possession to the party for whom the decree was made. If
this were disobeyed, the court granted a commission to justices of the peace to put the
party in possession; and in case of need, a writ of assistance was awarded, directed to the
plaintiff, commanding him to be aiding and assisting the justices with the posse comitatus,
to putting the party in possession, and to apprehend the contemners of the court; so that
though the court could not bind the right it secured the possession, as the Praetors did under their extra-ordinary jurisdiction. See Spence, The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Courts
of Chancery, (1846) Vol. 1, 392.
At that stage, equitable rights could not be said to be merely rights in personam for the real object of the writs of assistance was to deprive the defendant of the possession of a specific res, for
the benefit of the plaintiff. See generally, Cook, The powers of Courts of Equity (1915) 15 Col.
L. Rev. 37.
36
Writs of Sequestration
There was also the Writ of sequestration which, in effect, was similar to the writ of assistance.
Where a defendant, who had been committed to prison for his refusal to comply with an equitable decree continued to be recalcitrant, the Court of Chancery would issue a writ of sequestration
whereby a sequestrator would be appointed to take possession of the defendants property pending the time the defendant would comply with the terms of the decree. It is not certain whether
the purchaser under the sale by the sequestrators got title.
In Shaw v. wright (1795) 3 Ves. 22, Loughborough L. C. said: The difficulty is this: if the sequestrators sell, and the purchaser should be brought before this court to complete their contracts,
I could not compel them to pay the money. I cannot make a man take a title, which he is to support a bill for an injunction. You will not find any instance of any order to sell under a sequestration a subject which passes by title and not by delivery. But see Cook, op. cit., at 113-114;
Pegge v. Skynner and Richardeon (1784) Ch. 1 Cox Eq. Cas. 23.
However, where a writ of assistance of sequestration order began, equitable rights in respect of
the property in dispute ceased to be mere rights in personam. In the words of a learned writer:
Originally the Chancellor could not act in rem in the sense of passing the legal title
to property of any kind; but, in the development of our judicial system, he asserted
successfully the power to do this in the case of chattels, by means of a sale under a
writ of sequestration. Even if this is denied, it by no means follows that equity acts
only in personam. If we recall that in personam means in reference to procedure,
nothing but bringing pressure to bear upon the defendants physical person, it is
clear that equity has done something which goes far beyond that. It has given the
purchaser from the sequestrator: (1) full equitable title to the chattels; (2) possession of the chattels; (3) the right to use all the powers of the court of equity to protect the possession and equitable title. As a consequence of the possession, the
purchaser thus becomes, according to the common law, owner as against all the
world except the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff having received money,
has, and may of course transfer, an indefeasible title to it, and is a swell off as the
judgment creditor in the legal action. See Cook, op. cit., at 114-115.
The inadequate or limited power of a court of equity to transfer property through its writs of assistance and sequestration, has been remedied by statutory provisions. See section 14 Judicature
Act 1884; section 31 Trustee Act 1893. The extended powers are both vesting and appointive.
Section 31 of the Trustee Act, 1893 empowered the court to make a vesting order in respect of
the property in dispute. The effect of a vesting order is the transfer of the property from one party
to the other. Where a vesting order could be made, the court may, if it is more convenient, appoint a person to execute conveyance, contract or other instruments on behalf of the party who
had refused to comply with the order.
______________________________________________________________
What is the effect of a vesting order?
______________________________________________________________
Foreclosure Order
37
Whenever it is proper and equitable, a court of equity will decree a strict foreclosure of a mortgagors equity of redemption in favour of the mortgagee. See Maitland, Equity (Brunyate Ed.)
1949, p. 183. in Toller v. Carteret (1705) 2 Vern. 494; 23 ER 916, the Court of Chancery decreed foreclosure of an equity of redemption to land situated outside jurisdiction on the ground
that equity acts in personam, and since the defendant was properly served within the jurisdiction,
the court had jurisdiction to entertain the action. In view of the full effect of this decision, can it
truly be said that equity acts in personam in decreeing a strict foreclosure of an equity of redemption?
In the words of the defence counsel in Paget v. Ede (1874) LR 18, Eq. Cas. 118, We dissent
from the proposition that a foreclosure decree is merely a personal decree. In as much as it deprives the mortgagor of his estate, and operates to vest the estate, in the mortgagee, it is a direct
proceeding in rem. It is a decree in personam in form only, the gist and essence being in the consequences, which are, that if the mortgagor do not pay, the estate will be taken out of him and
transferred to the mortgagee, and his equity of redemption are wholly inconsistent with its being
a mere personal right.
Similarly, action for delivery up and cancellation of documents obtained by fraud falls in the
same category in that the principal object of the action is the surrender of a specific res. So is the
equitable decree for the appointment of a receiver whose function is to take charge of the property in dispute and preserve such property for the benefit of the person in whose favour the order
was made. See Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction (1846) Vol. 1, p. 378.
4.0
CONCLUSION
On the strength of the maxim, Equity acts in personam, the chancery enforced rights created
later under its exclusive jurisdiction as well as other equitable remedies classified as either concurrent or auxiliary jurisdiction in absolute defiance of corresponding remedies at law.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the nature of equitable rights. You should now be able to define
equitable rights; differentiate between rights in personam and rights in rem; and explain how
judgements are enforced.
6.0
Discuss the procedure for the enforcement of a judgment of the common law courts.
7.0
38
UNIT 6
NATURE OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS II
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
The nature of the Rights of a Beneficiary under a Trust
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This unit is a continuation of the last unit. In the last unit, we considered the nature of equitable rights which evolved from the recognition of equity jurisdiction as a second force
in the Nigerian legal system. In this unit, we will consider the nature of the rights of a
beneficiary under a trust.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Describe the nature of the rights of a beneficiary under a trust.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
The nature of the Rights of a Beneficiary under a Trust
The nature of the right of a beneficiary under a trust raises yet another controversy as to whether
such right is a right in personam or in rem. See Scott, The Nature of the Rights of the Cestui que
Trust (1917) 17 Col. L. Rev. 269; Cook, Powers of Courts of Equity (1915) 15 Col. L. Rev. 37;
Maitland, Equity (Brunyate Ed.) 1949, pp. 110-116; Harlan Stone, The Field of Modern Equity
(1929) 45 LQR 196.
However, the fact is that the determination or classification of this right should not depend exclusively on the consideration of abstract jurisprudence. A thorough examination and analysis of the
practical issues involved in both the enforcement of this right and the extent to which this right
confers proprietary right on the beneficiary is a sine qua non.
It will not be wholly correct to classify the right as merely right in personam nor will it be absolutely true to classify it as right in rem. A right in personam is of a definite kind enforceable
against specifically determinate person(s) and a right in rem is a right residing in a person, which
he can enforce against indeterminate number of persons. See Nathan & Marshall, A Casebook on
Trusts (5th Ed.) p.1.
The equitable doctrine of tracing trust property permits the beneficiary to follow the trust property, either in its original or converted form into the hands of the trustee and into the hands of
anyone except the bonafide purchaser for value without notice. See Re Halletts Estate (1880) 13
Ch. D. 696; Re Diplock (1948) Ch. 465. This is because Equity has regarded trust money as a
sort of inanimate Proteus, who must at all costs be retained through all his metamorphosis. It can
39
be followed into the hands of a banker, into whatever investment it may be put, provided it can
be identified, and even, as in Sinclair v. Brougham, beyond the range of actual identification
This high place into which the cestui que trust is pitchforked is what marks him as holding far
more than a mere ius in personam.
This shows the flexible manner in which the equitable doctrine of tracing could be employed. It
is therefore possible for the beneficiary under a trust to enforce his equitable right and interest
against an indeterminate number of persons except the singular case of the bonafide purchaser
for value of the legal estate. Nevertheless, the view is widely held that because the equitable right
of a beneficiary succumbs to the bonafide purchaser for value of the legal estate, the right is
merely in personam and not in rem. See Harlan Stone, op. cit. At p. 467; Maitland, op. cit at
pp.110-116.
According to a protagonist of this view, the effect of the equitable doctrine of tracing, which in
fact raises the status of the right of the beneficiary under a trust far beyond ordinary right in personam, has been minimised on the ground that where equity imposes a trust upon third persons,
it does so upon the theory that a new right in personam has been created against the third person,
and that what equity actually does in following trust property into the hands of strangers, is to
create successive rights in personam against successive takers of the trust res not essentially different in character from the right which is asserted against the original trustee, although they differ from it in their origin. See Harlan Stone, op. cit. at 476.
No doubt, the above is a meaningful argument which serves as a reminder of the theory employed by the early Chancellors to keep the doctrine of uses alive. The medieval Chancellors
emphasised the notion that the enforcement of uses by the Chancery was based purely upon
conscience and that the Chancellor never intended to create any new system of priority interest in
property. But once the institution of trust had gained universal recognition and acceptance, it became clear that a new proprietary interest in property had evolved, an interest which has all the
characteristics of a legal interest except that it cannot be enforced against a bonafide purchaser
for value of the legal estate for the simple reason, though convenient and expedient, that where
the equities are equal the law prevails.
In the circumstance, the argument in favour of the view that the right of the beneficiary under a
trust is a right in personam is merely explaining the origin of the beneficiarys right: it would not
appear to have taken into consideration the subsequent development regarding the enforcement
of equitable rights. Hence, the argument may be valid only in the context of abstract jurisprudence. For, the whole doctrine of the following of trust funds by a beneficiary shows that equitable rights are a great deal higher than mere iura in personam, for the beneficiary emphatically
claims a proprietary right, and will recover the trust proprietary right, and will recover the trust
property in specie; he will not be relegated to a mere right to a dividend like an ordinary creditor
of the trustee. Equitable rights and interests must, then, be regarded as hybrids, standing midway
between iura in personam and iura in rem. See Hanbury, The Field of Modern Equity (1929) 45
LQR 196, 199.
It is now well established that the equitable doctrine of tracing which permits the beneficiary to
follow the trust property into the hands of anyone except the bonafide purchaser for value of the
legal (see Re Halletts Estate (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696; and Re Diplock (1948) Ch. 465.) confers
some sort of proprietary right in the trust res upon the beneficiary. Harlan Stone, who holds the
dissenting view that the right of a beneficiary under a trust is a mere right in personam, conceded
that the ultimate effect of enforcing a trust in equity, where the court makes its decree directing
40
the turning over of trust property to the cestui que trust, is, in a great number of cases, the same
as though the cestui que trust possessed a right in the property itself, cannot of course be questioned. The nature of the Rights of the Cestui que Trust; (1917) 17 Col. L. Rev. 467, 468.
This proprietary right is further strengthened by the fact that the beneficiary is not only entitled to
recover the trust property in specie, he can also recover the proceeds of the sale of trust property
even where the proceeds are no longer identifiable. See Sinclair v. Brougham (1914) AC 855.
There are other cases in which the right of a beneficiary under a trust has been given far more
recognition than a mere right in personam. In Williams v. Cole (1952) 14 WACA 129, the West
African Court of Appeal held that the beneficiaries of a trust have a better right to the possession
of the trust property as against the trustees successors in title. Similarly, under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier (1841) LJ Ch. 354, a beneficiary, who is sui juris and absolutely entitled under
the trust, can put an end to the trust by calling for the immediate transfer of the corpus of the trust
either to himself or according to his direction. See further Jones v. Nichols (1938) 4 WACA 58.
For the purposes of income tax, the beneficiary may also be regarded as the real owner of the
trust property. In Baker v. Archer-Shee (1927) AC 844 at 866, the majority opinion of the House
of Lords held that the income of a trust fund belonged to the beneficiary so that the beneficiary is
chargeable as if the fund accrued to him directly. Lord Wrenbury stated that the right of the beneficiary under the will in question was an equitable right in possession to receive during her life
the proceeds of the shares and stocks of which she was a tenant for life. Her right was not to a
balance sum, but to the dividends subject to certain deductions. His Lordship concluded that her
right under the will was property from which income was derived.
The decision has been criticised. (See Hanbury, A Periodical Menace to Equitable Principles
(1928) 44 LQR 468). It has been suggested that the majority opinion in the House of Lords
which recognised the proprietary claim of a beneficiary under a trust should be limited entirely
on the widening interpretation of the Income Tax Act 1918; otherwise it would blur the distinction between legal and equitable interest. But recognition of the proprietary claim of a beneficiary under a trust is realistic assessment of the modern nature of equitable interests in property.
Such recognition need not create any confusion between the ownership of the trustee and that of
the beneficiary. On the contrary, it would appear unrealistic to deny a proprietary claim to an interest that can be alienated, assigned, mortgaged or disposed of by will in the same manner as a
legal interest, merely because of the fear (which is unfounded) that such a recognition between
the legal ownership of the trustee and the equitable ownership of the beneficiary.
In Senior v. Braden 295 US 422, 791 Ed. 1520, the United States Supreme Court reiterated its
earlier opinion (see Brown v. Fletcher 235 US 589; 59 L. ed. 374) that the beneficiary under a
trust had an interest in and to the property that was more than a bare right and much more than a
chose in action. For he had an admitted and recognised fixed right to the present enjoyment of
the estate with a right to the corpus itself. His estate in the property thus in possession of the trustee, for his benefit, though defeasible, was alienable to the same extent as though in his own possession. See Senior v. Braden 295 US 422, 433.
In Balir v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 300 US 5 at 13-14, Chief Justice Hughes of the
United States Supreme Court stated that the will creating the trust entitled the beneficiary during
his life to the net income of the property held in trust. He thus became the owner of an equitable
interest in the corpus of the property; and by virtue of that interest he was entitled to enforce the
trust, to have a breach of trust enjoined and to obtain redress in case of breach. The interest was
present property alienable like any other, in the absence of a valid restraint upon alienation. The
41
beneficiary may thus transfer a part of his interest as well as the whole. Assignment of the beneficial interest by the beneficiary is not an assignment of a chose in action but of the right, title
and estate in and to property.
The relationship between the dual ownership existing in trust property has been clearly stated:
The trustee is a buffer between the cestui que trust and the world; as against the rest
of the world he has the rights of an owner, and he has the duties of an owner; but
these rights he holds for the benefit of the cestui que trust, and the burden of the duties he can, by the aid of a court of equity, shift to the trust property and even, in
some cases, to the cestui que trust himself. But when it is necessary for the protection of the cestui que trust, equity will recognise that he is in very truth beneficial
owner of the trust property. See Scott, The Nature of the Rights of the Cestui que
Trust (1917) 17 Col. L. Rev. 269, 290.
However, it should be noted that there are a few other cases in addition to the doctrine of bonafide purchaser for value of the legal estate which deny the beneficiary of the claim to proprietary ownership of the trust res. In Schalit v. Nadler (1933) 2 KB 79, the court held that a beneficiary of a trust property cannot sue or distrain for rent due from a tenant to whom a lease or tenancy of the trust property has been granted by the trustee. The trustee is the only person who can
take such action, and his right to do so arise from the fact that he alone is the lessor. (A beneficiary can sue, though he is obliged to bring such action in the name of the trustee who has the legal
estate. See Ojikutu v. Fela (1954) 14 WACA 628).
The court further stated obiter that, the right of the beneficiary whose trustee has leased the trust
property, is not to the rent, but to an account from the trustee of the profits received from the
leasehold transaction. He has no right to demand a direct payment of rent from the trustee nor
can he insist that the cheque received from the tenant or lessee be endorsed to him.
The ratio of this decision is not so much that the right of a beneficiary is merely a right in personam; for, had the decision been different, a tenant who is already accustomed to paying his
rent to the person appearing in his lease as lessor, might be faced with a demand, without previous notice, from the beneficiary; and it is possible that before he, the lessee had had time to
interplead, a distress might be levied at the instance of both the beneficiary and the trustee, and
apparently neither would be wrongful. See Schalit v. Nadler (supra) at 84. Surely it would be inequitable to the extreme to put a lessee of a trust property into such an unenviable position.
For a similar reason, a beneficiary cannot maintain an action for account against a debtor to the
trust estate. In Ojikutu v. Fela (supra) at 630, the plaintiffs sued as beneficiaries under a will for
an account of rents and profits collected by the defendant in respect of certain premises described
as No. 39 Agarawu Street, Lagos. It was evident that the defendant was not a trustee under the
will. Cousey, JA, delivering the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal said that if the
will upon which the plaintiffs sued was of effect, the legal estate in the property mentioned
vested in the trustees of the will. Therefore, the plaintiffs had no interest in the legal estate; it was
not within their right to bring an action for account against a debtor to the trust estate.
Although a beneficiary may not institute legal proceedings in respect of the trust property in the
name of the trustee without his authority, he may however file a bill against the trustee for the
execution of the trust in accordance with the trust instruments, if the trustee would not take
proper steps to enforce a claim due to the trust property.
______________________________________________________________
42

What do you understand by the equitable doctrine of tracing?
______________________________________________________________
4.0
CONCLUSION
Although a beneficiary may not institute legal proceedings in respect of the trust property in the
name of the trustee without his authority, he may however file a bill against the trustee for the
execution of the trust in accordance with the trust instruments.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the nature of the rights of a beneficiary under a trust. You
should now be able to describe the nature of the rights of a beneficiary under a trust.
6.0
What do you understand by a bonafide purchaser for value?
7.0
43
MODULE 2
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
UNIT 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY II

Maxims of equity
Priorities
Assignment of choses in action
Conversion and reconversion
Election
Satisfaction
MAXIMS OF EQUITY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Particular Maxims
3.1.1 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
3.1.2 Equity follows the law
3.1.3 Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail
3.1.4 Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails
3.1.5 He who seeks equity must do equity
3.1.6 He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
3.1.7 Delay defeats equities or equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent
3.1.8 Equality is equity
3.1.9 Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form
3.1.10 Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done
3.1.11 Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation
3.1.12 Equity acts in Personam
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last module, we considered the history of equity, how the doctrines of equity were introduced into Nigeria, the relation between Equity and Common Law and the nature of equitable
rights. In this unit, we will consider the maxims of equity. These are guidelines of the jurisdiction
of Equity which have been developed throughout its history. They should not be regarded as rigid
formulae for the application of equitable rules, but rather as a collection of general principles
which can be moulded or adapted to suit the circumstances of the individual case.
The maxims have two main purposes:
(i) To show the historical development of equitable rules and procedure;
(ii) To guide the application of those rules at the present and in the future.
Furthermore, as far as the study of equity is concerned, they are a convenient and meaningful
way of classifying equitable principles and the many varied areas in which they are to be
44
found. Since many of the maxims overlap, each should not be considered in isolation from the
others.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) List the maxims of equity; and
(ii) Explain each maxim of equity.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
PARTICULAR MAXIMS
There are twelve generally accepted maxims. They are as follows:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

Equity follows the law
Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail
Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails
He who seeks equity must do equity
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Delay defeats equities or equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent
Equality is equity
Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form
Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done
Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation
Equity acts in Personam
We will now consider each one of the maxims in detail.
3.1.1 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

This maxim is at the root of all equitable jurisdiction. It should not be interpreted as meaning
that every moral wrong was remedied by Equity. It means that, in certain circumstances, where
the Common Law failed to recognise a right or to provide a remedy for a wrong, Equity would
not stand by and see a party suffer an injustice, but would grant a remedy, provided it was suitable for judicial enforcement. The operation of the maxim may be seen in relation to the three
types of equitable jurisdiction; original, concurrent and auxiliary.
Original jurisdiction - Trusts
At Common Law, the trustee was the absolute owner of the trust property and could deal with
it as he pleased; the rights of the beneficiaries were not recognised. Equity, however, conceiving this to be a wrong, compelled the trustee to hold the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries, whose rights Equity enforced not only against the trustee but also against any transferee
from him with notice of the trust.
Concurrent jurisdiction - Equitable Remedies
At Common Law, the only remedy for a breach of contract was damages. Where this remedy
45
would be insufficient for the plaintiff (e.g. in the case of breach of a contract for the sale of
land), Equity would grant specific performance. Thus compelling the defendant to perform the
contract. Similarly, where damages would be insufficient redress for a tort (e.g. nuisance), Equity would grant an injunction to restrain further invasion of the plaintiffs rights.
Auxiliary jurisdiction - Equitable Procedure
The Common Law courts had no power to order discovery of documents in the possession of a
party to an action; the Court of Chancery did make such orders, without which many wrongs
would have been remediless. Another example of the maxim is equitable execution. At Common Law, a judgment creditor could not levy execution on any property of the judgment debtor
in which the latter had only an equitable interest. Thus, for instance, an equity of redemption or
a beneficial interest in a trust could not be touched at Common Law.
The Court of Chancery thus evolved a procedure whereby equitable execution could be levied
on the equitable interest. This was done by the appointment of a receiver of the equitable interest, supplemented in appropriate cases by an injunction restraining the judgement debtor from
disposing of the interest.
Limits to the maxim
The maxim must not be taken too widely. First, there are many wrongs which cannot be remedied in Equity any more than at Common Law. Thus, for instance, unfair trade competition
which does not come within the definition of any Tort cannot be remedied either at law or in
Equity. Secondly, even where Equity does provide a remedy, it may stop short of applying it in
certain defined situations. For instance, although specific performance is a general remedy for
breach of contract where damages would be inadequate, there are some instances where damages would not be adequate and yet specific performance will not be granted.
Thus, contracts for personal services and contracts requiring the constant supervision of the
court cannot be specifically enforced. It may thus be said that the application of the maxim is
limited by what is realistic, practicable and convenient for the court.
3.1.2 Equity follows the law

Equity never challenged the Common Law as the basis of all the laws of the land. Indeed, Equity could not have existed without the Common Law, since the Chancellor originally merely
interfered here and there in order to do justice between the parties where the Common Law
failed to provide a remedy. It was only later that Equity developed into a distinct body of rules
and principles. Most of these principles would be meaningless if divorced from the rules of
Common Law on to which they are engrafted and supplement.
Thus, for instance, whilst regarding the beneficiaries under a trust as the equitable owners of
the property, Equity never denied the legal title of the trustee and, therefore, stops short of enforcing the trust against a bonafide purchase of the legal estate from the trustee without notice
of the trust, thereby acknowledging the paramountcy of the legal estate.
(i) Equity adopted the Common Law doctrine of estates. Any estate or interest known at
law (e.g. fee simple, fee tail and life interest) can exist as an equitable interest under a trust.
(ii) Equitable interests devolve on intestacy in the same way as legal estates, so that the eld46
est son takes all the land as heir, to the exclusion of his younger brother and sisters.
(iii) Equity follows the Common Law rules governing joint tenancies.
(iv) Equity follows the Common Law rules relating to mistake in the formation of contracts (whilst supplementing these by means of equitable remedies).
But where Common Law rules were archaic or excessively rigid, Equity refused to follow
them. Thus, for instance, the technical rules relating to legal contingent remainders were never
applied to equitable interests; nor was there escheat of equitable interest on intestacy.
The meaning of the maxim may be summed-up by saying that Equity has never disturbed
Common Law rules, nor claimed to override them. Equity only interferes where there is some
important circumstance disregarded by the Common Law and where the lack of a remedy at
law will cause injustice to a party. Thus, wherever equitable principles are at variance with legal ones, this is due not to Equitys denial of the validity of the legal rule, but rather to Equitys
assertion that a gap exists in the law which it is Equitys duty to fill.
3.1.3 Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail

This maxim governs the position where there are competing interests in property, one of which
is a legal interest, the other equitable. Where the claims of both parties are equally fair and
meritorious, precedence will be given to the legal interest. The operation of the maxim may be
seen in the following hypothetical illustration:
A acquires an equitable charge over Blackacre (worth N4million) as security for a loan of N1.5
million. B later takes a legal mortgage of Blackacre (still worth N4million), also to secure a
loan of N1.5 million. B had no notice of As equitable charge when he lent the money, and now
the value of Blackacre has dropped to N2 million. Here B is entitled to be paid the full amount
of his loan (N1.5 million) from the proceeds of sale of Blackacre. A must be content with what
is left (N500,000.00), since Bs legal estate takes priority over As equitable interest.
If, on the other hand, before he lent the money, B had received notice of As equitable charge,
B would not gain priority over A, and the position would be reversed, since there would not be
equal equity. Equity will not allow the carelessness or imprudence of B in lending the money,
knowing of a prior charge on the property, to defeat the interest of A, the innocent party.
3.1.4 Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails
This maxim concerns priority between two competing equitable interests in property. The general rule is that equitable interests rank according to the order of their creation. A well-known
example is Cave v. Cave (1880) 15 Ch. D. 639. In this case, a sole trustee in breach of trust
used trust money in the purchase of land, and had the land conveyed to his brother. The brother
then mortgaged the land to A by way of legal mortgage, and then to B by way of equitable
mortgage. Neither A nor B having notice of the trust.
It was held that:
(i) As legal mortgage took priority over the equitable interests of the Beneficiaries
(where there is equal equity the law shall prevail), but
(ii) The interests of the beneficiaries had priority over Bs mortgage, since they were earlier
in time (where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails).
47
There are occasions, however, where the equities are not equal. Thus, for instance, where the
holder of the prior equitable interest has been guilty of fraud or gross negligence, he will be
postponed to a later equitable incumbrancer. In Rice v Rice (1854) 2 Drew. 73, a vendor conveyed land to the purchaser without receiving the purchase money, yet signed a conveyance
containing a receipt for the money. It was held that the vendors equitable lien for the unpaid
purchase-money was postponed to a subsequent equitable mortgagee with whom the purchaser
had deposited the title deeds, the mortgagee having no notice of the lien. Compare with Ayorinde v. Scott, CCCHCJ/2/72, p.149.
The maxim does not apply where there are successive assignments or mortgages of an equitable interest in pure personalty; for under the rule in Dearle v. Hall (1828) 3 Russ. 1, priority is
here determined not by the order in which the assignments were created, but by the order in
which the successive assignees gave notice of their assignments to the debtor, trustee or other
person liable to pay.
3.1.5 He who seeks equity must do equity

The basis of this maxim is that if the plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy or wishes to obtain
any equitable relief, he must be prepared to act fairly towards the defendant. The following examples may be given:
The doctrine of election
Where a donor by deed or will gives his own property to E and in the same instrument purports
to give Es property to X, E will not be able be able to claim the whole of the gift to him unless
he allows the gift to X to take effect. See Snell, Principles of Equity, 26th ed., (1960) pp. 532542.
Notice to redeem a mortgage
If a mortgagor wishes to exercise his equitable right to redeem, he must give reasonable notice
of his intention to the mortgagee.
Consolidation of mortgages
This is the right of a person in whom two or more mortgages are vested to refuse to allow one
mortgage to be redeemed unless the other(s) are also redeemed. This may be seen from a hypothetical illustration: X has made two loans of N2,000 to Y, the first loan being secured by a
mortgage of Blackacre (worth N3,000). The second by a mortgage of Whiteacre (also worth
N3,000). If the value of Blackacre subsequently decreased to N1,000 while Whiteacre increased to N5,000, it would be unfair to allow Y to redeem Whiteacre and leave Blackacre unredeemed. Equity will thus allow X to consolidate and will not permit Y to redeem Whiteacre
unless he is prepared to redeem Blackacre also.
Illegal loans
The application of the maxim to illegal loans is exemplified by the case of Lodge v. National
Union Investment Co. (1907) 1 Ch. 300. X borrowed money from Y, a moneylender and mortgaged certain securities to him. The contract was illegal and void since the moneylender was
not registered under the English Moneylenders Act 1900. When X sued Y to recover the securities, it was held that an order for delivery up would only be made if X were prepared to do equity by repaying the amount of the loan.
In Kasumu v. Baba-Egbe (1956) AC 539, however, both the West African Court of Appeal and
48
the Privy Council declined to follow Lodges case. The facts were that the plaintiff mortgaged
leasehold land to the defendant, a licensed moneylender as security for a loan. The moneylender had kept no book recording the transaction as required by section 19 of the Nigerian
Moneylenders Act (Cap. 136, Laws of Nigeria 1948), the agreement was therefore unenforceable under that section. The plaintiff instituted proceedings claiming possession of the property,
cancellation of the mortgage, and delivery up of the title deeds.
It was held that he could so recover. The principle in Lodges case was not applicable to a
transaction declared unenforceable by section 19 of the Moneylenders Act. The Act in enacting
that no loan which failed to satisfy the statutory requirements was to be enforced, meant that no
court of law was to recognise the lender as having any right to recover his money. To impose
terms of repayment as a condition for making the order sought by the plaintiff would be in direct conflict with the policy of the Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the
property without having to repay the loan.
3.1.6 He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

This maxim means that a plaintiff who seeks an equitable remedy or other equitable relief must
show that his past conduct in the transaction has been fair, honest and above board. It may be
distinguished from the previous maxim in that it refers to behaviour prior to the suit, as opposed to future conduct.
Illustrations
(i) A tenant whose lease has been forfeited for non-payment of rent cannot expect equitable
relief against forfeiture if he has been using the premises for immoral purposes. See Gill v.
Lewis (1956) 2 QB 1 at pp. 13, 14, 17.
(ii) An equitable tenant under an agreement for a lease cannot expect to obtain a decree of
specific performance of the legal lease if he has been in breach of the covenants to be contained in that lease. See Coastworth v. Johnson (1886) 54 LT 520.
(iii)
Where an infant beneficiary, by fraudulently representing himself to be of age,
obtained from the trustees a sum of money to which he was not entitled until he came of age,
neither he nor his assigns could compel the trustees to pay the sum over again when he attained
his majority. See Overton v. Bannister (1844) 3 Hare 503.
It is important to note that the maxim does not refer to any conduct of the plaintiff other than
that which is connected with the transaction in question. As one American Judge put it: Equity
does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives. See Brandeis J. in Loughran v.
Loughran, 292 US 216 at 229 (1934). It is only conduct which has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for that will bar the plaintiffs claim. See Dering v. Winchelsea
(1787) 1 Cox Eq. 318 at 319, 320.
Explain the maxim He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
3.1.7 Delay defeats equities or equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent
It is a general principle of Equity that a person will not be granted an equitable remedy if he has
been guilty of undue delay in bringing his action. Such delay is known as laches. A court of
49
Equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his right and
acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this court into activity, but conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence; where these are wanting, the court is passive, and
does nothing. Per Lord Camden LC in Smith v. Clay (1767) 3 Bro.C.C 639 n. at 640 n.
The doctrine of laches does not apply to cases governed by the Statutes of Limitation such as
claims to redeem or to foreclose mortgages of land, or a claim by a beneficiary against a trustee
for a non-fraudulent breach of trust. Wherever the Statutes apply, no delay short of the limitation period will bar the claim.
Application of the doctrine
The principles governing the doctrine of laches were stated in the well-known dictum of Lord
Selborne in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221 at 239, cited with approval
by the Privy Council in Nwakobi v. Nzekwu (1964) 1 WLR 1019. The doctrine applies
where it would be practically unjust to grant 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 waving 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.
Further, it was emphasised by Ademola , CJN in Fagbemi v. Aluko (1968) 1 All NLR 233 at
237, that in considering the equitable doctrine of laches, the court does not act only on the
delay by the plaintiff, but must also consider (1) acquiscence on the plaintiffs part and (2) any
change of position that has occured on the defendants part. Thus there will be laches where
the plaintiff has so acted as to induce the defendant to alter his position in the reasonable belief
that the claim has been abandoned, or where the delay amounts to evidence of an agreeement
by the plaintiff to abandon his right.
In Aganran v. Olushi (1907) 1 NLR 66, land held by a family under customary law was sold in
1902 to the defendants by certain members of the family whose assent was necessary to the validity of the sale. The sale was therefore voidable by the plaintiff. The plaintiff took no steps to
set aside the sale until 1905, when he commenced the present action. The court found (i) that
the plaintiff had at one stage agreed, for a consideration, to ratify the sale (though he subsequently resiled from his promise); (ii) that the defendants had at one stage sued as owners of
the land to eject trespassers, and the plaintiff knew of this but did not interfere; (iii) that the defendants had erected houses on the land and the plaintiff did nothing to stop them.
It was held that all these circumstances, coupled with the three-year delay in bringing the action, amounted to lashes, and the plaintiff had lost his right to set aside the sale. Winkfield J. at
p. 68 said: I think that the actions of the plaintiff amounted to an expression of intention or a
promise not to exercise the right which he possessed.
Another example of the application of the doctrine in Nigeria is Ibeziako v. Abutu (1954) 3
ENLR 24. In this case, A in 1949 was granted for value the lease of a plot of land by L. B alleged that the same plot formed the subject-matter of a grant to him by Ls predecessor-in-title
in 1942. It was held that if B could prove that A had notice of his (Bs) interest when he acquired the lease, prima facie B would be entitled to a decree of specific performance of his equitable interest to convert it into a legal estate. But since he took no steps to enforce his rights
until the time of the present action in 1954, B was guilty of laches and had therefore lost what50
ever rights he may have had. Reynolds J. quoted a passage from Halsburys Laws of England
(3rd ed. Vol. 14 at p.646);
In certain classes of claim, the claim to relief in Equity must be made with special
promptitude. In claims for specific performance and for rescission of contracts, the
special relief in Equity is only given on condition of the plaintiff coming with great
promptitude Any substantial delay after negotiations have terminated-such as a
year, or probably less-will be a bar.
But the doctrine of lashes is certainly not confined to specific performance and rescission of
contracts. In Ephraim v. Asuquo (1923) 4 NLR 98, for instance, the plaintiff sought to have a
grant of letters of administration set aside. It was held that as nearly two years had elapsed
since the grant, and the administrator had in all probability completed distribution of the estate,
there had been laches, and the plaintiffs claim failed.
Finally, it may be noted that any reasonable explanation for the delay, such as the plaintiffs
ignorance of the facts on which the claim is based, infancy or other disability of the plaintiff, or
fraud on the part of the defendant, will absolve the plaintiff. Also, in actions concerning rights
to land, the rights of the present plaintiff over the land will not be affected by the lashes of the
predecessor-in-title. See Nwokobi v. Nzekwu (1964) 1 WLR 1019.
3.1.8 Equality is Equity
The application of this maxim may be considered under the following heads
(i) presumption of tenancy in common;
(ii) severance of joint tenancy;
(iii) equal division by the court; and
(iv) the doctrine of satisfaction.
1.
Presumption of Tenancy in Common
Equity leans against joint tenancies. Equity dislikes the joint tenancy, for in it the right of survivorship
(the jus accrescendi) operates i.e. the survivor of two joint tenants is entitled to the whole property, and
the estate of the deceased tenant takes nothing. Where there are more than one joint tenants, on the death
of one, the whole property vests in the survivors. This process continues until there is only one survivor,
who then holds the land as a sole tenant. For a detailed account, see Megarry and Wade, Law of Real
Property, 3rd ed. Pp. 403 et seq.
In a tenancy in common, on the other hand, the share of a deceased tenant passes not to the survivor but
to those entitled under the deceaseds will or intestacy, for a tenant in common has a distinct share in the
property which is his to dispose of as he wishes.
In three instances Equity treats joint tenants at law as tenants in common of the beneficial interest, so that although at law the survivor is entitled to the whole property, in Equity he will be regarded as trustee of the deceaseds share for the benefit of those entitled under the latters will or
intestacy. These instances are:
(a) Where property is purchase in unequal shares
Where two persons, X and Y, purchase property, providing the purchase money in unequal
shares, and have the property conveyed to them as joint tenants, on the death of X, Y becomes
entitled to the whole property at law, but in Equity he becomes trustee for Xs estate of the share
51
of the property proportionate to the amount advanced by X (Y being of course beneficially entitled to his own share).
But where the money is advanced in equal shares, Y is entitled to the whole property both at law
and in Equity, for it is presumed that when two persons advance equal amounts, they intend the
jus accrescendi to operate. See Lake v. Gibson (1729) 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 290.
(b) Loan on Mortgage
Where two persons, X and Y, lend money to Z who then mortgages his property to them jointly,
it is immaterial whether the amounts lent were equal or unequal; since the transaction is a loan, a
tenancy in common will be implied, so that the surviving mortgage will be a trustee for the estate
of the deceased mortgagee of that part of the property which is proportionate to the sum lent by
the deceased.
(c) Partnerships
It is presumed that any property acquired by partners in their business is held by them as beneficial tenants in common jus accrescendi inter mercatores locum non habet (meaning the right
of survivorship has no place in business).
2. Severance of Joint Tenancy
The term severance is here used to describe the process whereby a joint tenancy is converted
into a tenancy in common. A joint tenant may convert a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common
by severance. Where there is a joint tenancy both at law and in Equity (e.g. where two joint purchasers advance equal amounts), Equity will readily treat the joint tenancy as severed and thus
converted into a tenancy in common, thereby excluding the right of survivorship.
Any alienation of his interest by a joint tenant will bring about severance. Even an agreement to
alienate suffices, provided it is made for value. See Brown v. Raindle (1796) 3 Ves. 256. Alienation may be by outright sale or gift or by mortgage. In Ipaye v. Aribisala (1930) 10 NLR 10, the
point in issue was whether a merely equitably mortgage of his interest by a joint tenant sufficed
to bring about severance.
The facts were that the plaintiff and his brother were joint tenants under a settlement of land.
The deed of settlement was kept in the brothers custody. After the death of the brother it was
discovered that he had, without the consent of the plaintiff, deposited the deed with the defendant
as security for a loan, thus creating an equitable mortgage of his (the brothers) interest in the
property.
The question was, did this operate to sever the joint tenancy? If the answer were in the affirmative, the brother would have become a tenant in common and the mortgage to the defendant
would be a valid alienation of the brothers interest, thus entitling the defendant to retain possession of the deed. On the other hand, if there had been no severance, the right of survivorship
would operate to vest the whole property in the plaintiff, both in law and Equity, and the defendant would have no right to possession of the deed. The Divisional Court adopted the latter
view, but the decision was reversed by the Full Court which held that the equitable mortgage, just
as a legal one, did bring about a severance, the legal joint tenancy being converted into a tenancy
in common in Equity. It made no difference that the mortgage was without the knowledge or
consent of the plaintiff, for one joint tenant may validly sever without the concurrence of the
other. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to possession of the deed.
52
3. Equal Division
Whenever there is no other fair and practicable basis upon which property may be distributed
amongst two or more rival claimants, the court will apply the maxim and divide the property
equally between them. This may be seen in the following examples:
(i) Where trustees fail to exercise a trust power, the court will divide the trust property
equally amongst all the members of the class of beneficiaries, even though the trustees
might have given unequal shares.
(ii) Where there is a settlement including a direction (a) that the fund shall be held on trust for
certain persons in unequal shares and (b) that any share which fails to vest shall accrue
to the other shares by way of addition, the accrue will be in equal shares and not in the
proportions laid down for the original shares. See Re Bowers Settlement Trusts (1942)
Ch. 197.
(iii) Where a husband and wife divorce or separate, both having contributed to the purchase
of the matrimonial home, or having operated a joint bank account, the court will not, in
the absence of any contrary arrangement between the parties, inquire into what was
contributed by each, but will divide the property equally between the two. See Jones v.
Maynard (1951) 1 Ch. 572. The rule is applicable even where husband and wife both
contribute to the running of a business. (See Landsman v. Landsman (1961) 105 S.J.
988.
4. The Doctrine of Satisfaction
Equity considers that if a father has more than one child, it is unlikely that he would wish to provide for one child twice over to the detriment of the others, hence the sub-maxim Equity leans
against double portions founded on the present maxim.
3.1.9 Equity looks to the Intent rather than to the Form
At Common Law, observance of the correct forms or proceedings in relation to any transaction
was all-important. Failure to do so often rendered a transaction invalid or led to a total loss of the
legal rights of a party. Conversely, if the due forms were employed in a transaction there was
often no possibility of challenging its validity or tempering its rigours. Equity, however, looking
to the intent rather than the form of words, considered it unfair for one party to insist on strict observance of form and thereby defeat the substance of a transaction and the true intention of the
parties. This may be seen in the following examples.
(i) Time Clauses
If a party to a contract for the sale of land fails to complete on the date stipulated in the agreement, at Common Law he is in breach of contract, and the other party may repudiate the transaction. But, in Equity, time is generally not of the essence of a contract, and breach of a time
clause will not be ground for repudiation by the other party, provided the party in default is ready
and able to complete within a reasonable time.
(ii) Covenants
Equity may regard a covenant as negative in substance (though positive in form) so as to enable
an injunction to be granted to restrain its breach; as where an injunction was granted to enforce a
tied-house covenant, whereby the owner of a public house agreed that a certain brewery should
have the exclusive right of supplying beer to him. See Catt v. Tourle (1869) 4 Ch. App. 654.
(iii)
Mortgages
53
In determining whether a transaction is a mortgage or not, Equity looks at the substance and not
merely the form. Thus, e.g. parol evidence is admissible to show that what appears on its face to
be an absolute conveyance was in fact intended to be by way of security only.
The maxim is also exemplified by Equitys attitude to redemption of mortgages. At Common
Law, if the mortgagor failed to repay the loan on the date fixed by the mortgage, he lost for ever
his right to redeem the property. Equity, however, always considered a mortgage to be a mere
security, and regarded the provision for repayment on the day stated in the mortgage covenant to
be a mere formality. Equity thus allowed a mortgagor to redeem his property after the redemption date had passed.
(iv) Penalties and Forfeitures
In determining whether a clause in a contract is a penalty or liquidated damages, Equity looks to
the intent of t he parties rather than to the form of words used. Thus, the fact that the expression
liquidated damages as used will not be conclusive of the effect of the clause, and it will be
treated as a penalty if it is found that it was not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered in the event of a breach, but merely a stipulation in terrorem to induce performance of the
contract. If the clause is found to be a penalty, Equity will grant relief to the promisor by reducing the amount to be paid by him to the actual loss suffered by the promise as a result of the promisors default.
On the same principle, Equity granted to a tenant relief against forfeiture of his lease for nonpayment of rent. This is now a statutory right. See Section 210, Common Law Procedure Act
1852; also provided for by the various High Court Laws, viz., Lagos, Cap. 80, s.22; East, Cap.
61, s.29; North, Cap. 49, s. 20; West, Cap. 44, s.21. The court will restore the lease if the tenant
pays all arrears of rent and the landlords costs within six months after the forfeiture.
(v) Equitable Assignment
For an assignment of a chose in action to be valid at law it must comply with the provisions of
the Judicature Act 1873, section 25(6), which require it to be in writing, to be absolute, and notice to be given to the debtor or trustee. But an assignment which is not in the form required by
the statute is quite valid in Equity. The classic dictum on this point is that of Lord MacNaghten
in Brandts Sons and Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (1905) A.C. 454 at p. 462, the language is immaterial if the meaning is plain. All that is necessary is that the debtor be given to understand
that the debt has been made over by the creditor to some third person.
(vi) Deeds
At Common Law a promise under seal is enforceable even though unsupported by consideration.
Equity however, will normally refuse to grant specific performance of a purely voluntary agreement even though it is made by deed. See Jefferys v. Jefferys (1841) Cr. & Ph. 138. This is expressed in the sub-maxim, Equity will not aid a volunteer.
3.1.10
Equity looks on that as done which ought to be done
Two examples of this maxim may be given

(i) Under the doctrine in Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch. D. 9, one who enters into possession of land under an agreement for a lease of which the court will grant specific performance, is in the same position (as between himself and the landlord) as if the lease had actually
been granted to him. In other words, an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease. The
54
leading Nigerian case is Savage v. Sarrough (1937) 13 N.L.R. 141, the facts of which may be
stated simply. The plaintiff and his brother and sister were owners of certain land and buildings. The defendant obtained from the plaintiffs brother a written agreement, not under seal,
for a lease for five years. The plaintiff claimed recovery of possession of the property. It was
held that in Equity the lease, though not under seal, must be deemed to have been effectively
granted and that for practical purposes the parties were inter se in the same position as if the
lease were valid at law, and that the claim for recovery of possession, therefore, failed.
(ii) The Doctrine of Conversion
If a trustee or other person is under a binding obligation to sell land and convert it into
money, or to invest a sum of money, in the purchase of land, Equity regards that as done
which ought to be done and treats the property as being in its converted state from the time
when the duty to convert arose. See Snell, 26th ed., (1960) pp. 513-527.
In Iragunima v. R.S.H.P.D.A. (2003) 12 NWLR Pt. 834 p.427, the 2nd respondents vendor
applied for a renewal of the lease which was assigned to him by the original lessee. The evidence on record shows that approval was given by the Governor for the renewal of the lease
in favour of the 2nd respondents vendor for a term of 60 years from 1/1/64 the date the original lease expired. There was also evidence that the 2nd respondents vendor was called upon
to pay all necessary fees relating to the new lease, that is, arears of rent from 1964-1973, the
preparation, execution and registration of the new lease which he did and obtained receipts
which were tendered in evidence. What remained was for the 1st respondent to execute the
new lease in favour of the 2nd respondents vendor. This was not done. Since the 2nd respondents vendor was in possession under the agreement for a new lease for a term of 60 years
from 1/1/64, he and the 2nd respondent were, in equity, in the same position with respect to
their respective rights as if a lease had been granted. Consequently, he had at least an equitable interest in the property in dispute.
3.1.11
Equity Imputes an Intention to Fulfil an Obligation
Where a person is obliged to do an act, whether by law (in the wide sense) or by moral obligation, and he does an act which could be taken as fulfilling that obligation, Equity will put the
most favourable construction on his motives, and he will be deemed to have done the act in performance of his duty. This maxim is the foundation of the doctrines of performance and satisfaction.
3.1.12
Equity Acts in Personam
One of the most important characteristics of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was that its
decrees were directed in personam, i.e. against the defendant personally. Thus, Lord Ellesmere
in the Seventeenth Century could justifiably claim that the controversial common injunction issued by the Chancellor was not an interference with the due processes of the Common Law
courts, but merely a direction in personam to the individual that, on equitable grounds, he must
not sue at Common Law. The maxim also meant that in property matters the Court of Chancery
would act against the person of the defendant by committing him to prison for contempt if he
failed to obey a decree, rather than in rem, i.e. against the property involved in the dispute.
Later Equity developed the alternative method of sequestration of the defendants property until
he obeyed a decree, and today, whilst still retaining the powers of committal and sequestration,
the court has numerous more convenient methods of enforcing its decrees. Thus, if a defendant
55
fails to convey land to the plaintiff as ordered by a decree of specific performance, the court, instead of merely imprisoning him or sequestrating his property, may appoint another person to
execute the transfer on his behalf; or it may make a vesting order, which has the effect of transferring the property from one person to another without the need for a conveyance. Furthermore,
since the Judicature Acts 1873 to 1875, equitable decrees are enforceable by any appropriate legal writ; thus, e.g. an order for the repayment of money can be enforced by a writ of fiery facias.
The maxim has thus lost some of its earlier importance, but its survival may be seen in the rule
that the court may make an equitable decree relating to property situated outside the jurisdiction,
as an exception to the general jurisdictional limits of the courts. Thus, the court may enforce a
trust relating to land abroad where the trustees are present within the jurisdiction (see Rochefoucauld v. Boustead (1897) 1 Ch. 196), or similarly, where the executors are present, administer
assets abroad. See Ewing v. Orr-Ewing (1883) 9 App. Cas. 34. In the leading case of Penn v.
Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves. Sen.444, it was held that the English court could decree specific
performance of a contract to sell land in America, since the defendant was within the jurisdiction.
This latter case was followed in Bata Shoe Co. v. Melikian (1956) 1 FSC 100, where the Supreme
Court held that the High Court of Lagos had jurisdiction to order specific performance of a contract to assign a lease of land situated at Aba, in the then Eastern Nigeria, which was outside the
jurisdiction of the Lagos Court, on the ground that the defendant resided in Lagos. Another interesting illustration of the maxim is afforded by Ayinule v. Abimbola (1957) LLR 41. In this
case, the defendant had been employed as agent by a Lagos firm, Jones Commercial Services.
After leaving his employment, he held himself out as still acting for the firm by writing from Accra, Ghana, to a firm in Germany, using his former employers notepaper and signing for Jones
Commercial Services. Onyeama J. granted an injunction against the defendant restraining him
from so acting in Ghana, on the ground that he was present in Nigeria. Since Equity acts in personam, it was immaterial that the acts complained of were being committed abroad.
Lastly, it is a controversial point whether the beneficiarys right under a trust is a right in personam, since the beneficiary may not only sue the trustee personally to recover the trust property
or its value, but may also trace the property and recover it or its proceeds from any other person
into whose hands it has come. The right to trace thus resembles a right in rem, attaching itself to
the property. However, because the beneficiary has no right to trace against a bona fide purchaser of the property without notice of the trust, his interest cannot be said to be a full right in
rem (unlike a legal interest). It has thus been suggested by many writers that these equitable
rights are hybrids, being technically rights in personam, but bearing more resemblance to rights
in rem.
4.0
CONCLUSION
The maxims are to show the historical development of equitable rules and procedure; and guide
the application of those rules at the present and in the future.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the maxims of equity. You should now be able to explain each
of the maxims and distinguish them even though they overlap.
6.0
56
Briefly explain the application of the maxim equality is equity.
7.0
Kodilinye Gilbert (2005 Rep.) An Introduction to Equity in Nigeria; Ibadan: Spectrum Books
Ltd.
Nwagbara Chigozie (2004 Rev.Ed.) Selected Cases on Land Law, Equity, Trusts, Taxation,
Banking and Conflict of Laws; Lagos: CI Publications.
UNIT 2
PRIORITY AND THE DOCTRINE OF BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR

VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Priority
3.2
Bonafide purchaser for value without notice
3.3
Definition and meaning of notice
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we examined the maxims of equity, which are guidelines of the jurisdiction of
Equity which have been developed throughout its history. In this unit, we will examine priority and
the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The question of priority becomes
important when there are two or more competing interests in property, more so, when the various
competing interests cannot be satisfied by the total value of the property that is subject to these
interests.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Explain Priority;
Discuss the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice; and
Define notice.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Priority
According to Maitland (Equity (Brunyate 2nd Ed.) 1949 p.125), 'It happens with unfortunate fre57
quency that a man having title to land contrives by means of fraudulent concealment to get money from a number of different persons on the security of the land - then disappears - and the
lenders are left to dispute among themselves as to the order in which they are to be paid out of
the value of the land which is insufficient to pay all of them.'
There is a similar situation with regard to dealings with family property. It is a notorious fact that
a piece of family land is being sold at different times to different persons. As Verity, Ag. P. observed in Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222 at 223,
The case is indeed in this respect like many which come before this court: one in which
the Oloto family either by inadvertence or design sell or purport to sell the same piece of
land at different times to different persons. It passes my comprehension how in these days,
when such disputes have come before this court over and over again, any person will purchase land from this family without the most careful investigation, for more often than not
they purchase a law suit, and very often that is all they get.
We shall see that many of these cases raise the problem of priority: two informal sales of the
same property at different times to two different persons would, prima facie, create equitable interests in the property in favour of the purchasers, while an informal sale followed by a formal
sale would respectively create an equitable interest and a legal interest. In both cases, as between
the rival claimants, priority will be determined by the relevant rules of law and equity.
3.1 Priority: The Temporal Order Rule

(i) Competing Legal Interests: Subject to some statutory provisions relating to registration of
certain interests in land and some other rules which owe their origin and development to the
Court of Chancery, the general principle is that priority is to be determined by the order in
which the competing interests are created: Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure: he who is
first in time is stronger in law. This temporal order of priority is equally recognised both at
law and in equity. As between adverse claimants of a legal interest, he who is prior in time is
stronger in law. The conflict in this case is, however, more apparent than real, for, where a legal mortgage has been created by the grant of a lease (see Jones v. Rhind (1869) 17 W.R. 1091),
a subsequent legal mortgage of the same property can take effect only in the reversion, that is,
after the expiration of the earlier mortgaged lease. See Mason v. Rhodes (1885) 53 L.T. 322.
Or, as was the case in Adu Kofi v. G. A. Adjei (1942) 8 WACA 198, where a landed property was
sold at two different auctions under two different writs issued by different Tribunals of competent jurisdictions. The court held that the plaintiff who bought the landed property in the earlier
auction which was a day before the second auction had, in point of time, obtained a better title
and that the subsequent sale to the defendant had no effect. In this case, it is obvious that the decision could not be otherwise unless the defendant could establish the invalidity of the earlier
auction sale.
(ii) Competing Equitable Interests: Where each of the rival claimants has only an equitable interest in the property, provided the equities are equal, the basic rule Qui prior est tempore potior
est jure applies.
In Cave v. Cave (1880) 15 Ch. D. 69, a trustee, in breach of trust, purchased land with trust fund
and the conveyance was made in his brother's name. However, the equitable right of the beneficiaries under the trust attached to the land. The brother made a legal mortgage to X and later an
equitable mortgage in favour of Z. Neither X nor Z had notice of the beneficiaries right under
58
the trust. As between the equitable rights of the beneficiaries and the equitable interest of Z, the
former prevailed being earlier in time. But as between the beneficiaries' right and X's claim, the
latter prevailed in accordance with the maxim that where the equities are equal the law prevails.
Thus, equity not only follows the law, it also gives recognition to the superior strength of the
law.
Similarly, in Assaf v. Fuwa (1954) 13 W.AC.A 232, where each of the rival claimants had only
an equitable interest, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upheld the temporal order of
priority.
Modifications of the Rule
Qui Prior Est Tempore Portior Est Jure
(i) Where there is equal equity the law prevails.
(ii) As between equal equities, the first in time shall prevail.
Two maxims of equity are of great importance in the determination of priority between rival adverse claimants to the same property. First, where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail.
The import of this maxim is that as between adverse claimants, where one has the legal interest
and the other has an equitable interest, the claimant of the legal interest will be preferred provided there is 'equal equity'. Equality in this context does not mean or refer to priority in point of
time, it means the non-existence of any circumstance which affects the conduct of one of the rival claimants, and makes it less meritorious than that of the other. See Bailey v. Barnes (1894) 1
Ch. 25, 36.
Thus, in Ajose v. Harworth (1925) 6 N.l.R. 98, the plaintiff who had earlier on obtained an
equitable interest in the property in dispute, brought this action asking for a declaration that the
property belonged to him as against the defendant Who had subsequently obtained the legal estate in the property. Van Der Meulen J. found that the defendant's conscience was clear and that
there was nothing in the conduct of the defendant Which made his Claim, in the transaction, less
meritorious than that of the plaintiff, since the equities were equal, the claim of the defendant,
who had subsequently acquired the legal estate was held to prevail over that of the plaintiff
whose claim was equitable. See further, Pilcher v. Rawling (1871-72) 7 Ch. Ap. Cas. 256.
The other maxim of equity which may modify the temporal order of priority is: 'as between equal
equities the first in time shall prevail.' The rule applies as between rival claimants of equitable
interests in the same property. However, the maxim as stated does not sufficiently explain its
practical operation, all it does is to confirm the general principle. 'Qui prior est tempore portior
est jure'. In this connection, the exposition of the rule by Kindersley V-C in Rice v. Rice (1853) 2
Drewry 73 at 78; 61 E.R. 646, is instructive. He said 'in a contest between persons having only
equitable interests, priority of time is the ground of preference last resorted to; that is, that a
Court of Equity will not prefer the one to the other, on the mere ground of priority of time, until
it finds upon an examination of their relative merits that there is no other sufficient ground of
preference between them, or, in other words, that their equities are in all other respects equal;
and that, if the one has on other grounds a better equity than the other, priority of time is immaterial.' (See also, Latec Investments Ltd v. Hotel Terrigal Property Ltd. (1965) 113 C.L.R. 265).
In the above case, a vendor of a leasehold property issued and endorsed receipt for the payment
of the purchase money in the deed of conveyance, when in actual fact, no money had been paid;
and, the title deeds in respect of the property were delivered to the purchaser, who, subsequently
59
deposited it with the defendant to secure an advance, thus creating an equitable mortgage in favour of the defendant who had no notice of the want of payment. The purchaser then absconded
without paying either the plaintiff-vendor or the defendant-equitable mortgagee. The question
was Who should be preferred: the vendor's equitable lien for the unpaid purchase money or the
equitable mortgage of the defendant, it being established that the total value of the leasehold
property was not sufficient to satisfy the respective claims of the vendor and the equitable mortgagee.
No doubt, the two competing equitable interests, abstractedly considered, are of equal value in
respect of their nature and quality. However, the question, whether their equities are in other respects equal, or whether the one or the other has acquired the better equity, must depend upon all
circumstances of each particular case, and especially the conduct of the respective parties. In this
regard, the fact of the possession of the deeds, which the mortgagee acquired with perfect bonafides, and without any wrong done to the vendor gave him, the equitable mortgagee a better equity than that of the vendor, therefore, the equitable interest of the mortgagee was held to prevail.
The decision will, however, be different if upon a comparison of the conduct of the two parties
and a close examination of all the circumstances of the case there is nothing to give to the one a
better equity than the other. The general principle governing determination of priority, qui prior
est tempore portior est jure, can then be applied, that is, priority of time in terms of creation will
give the better equity.
In Re Kings Settlement (1931) 2 Ch. 294 at 301, the settlor made a conveyance to his son and
daughter-in-law. The deed of conveyance stated that they took as absolute beneficial owners in
consideration of his love and affection for them. The son and the daughter-in-law at the same
time executed a deed poll declaring trusts of the property in favour of the settlor and other beneficiaries. The conveyance and the title deeds were handed to the Son and the daughter-in-law,
who purported to be absolute owners, created incumbrances on the property in favour of certain
incumbrancers for value and without notice of trusts. The plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries under the trust, brought this action against the defendant equitable mortgagee, the defendant trustee, asking for a declaration that the defendant had no enforceable lien or charge on the property. The competition was, therefore, between the prior equitable interests of the beneficiary under
the trust and the subsequent equitable lien of the mortgagee.
Farewell J. decided in favour of the equitable mortgagee. In the course of his judgement, he observed:
I have now to decide between the equities of the beneficiaries, and of the incumbrancers,
treating them both for the moment as equitable incumbrancers. Primafacie, the beneficiaries' equity, being earlier in date, ought to prevail. But when I find that their title is based
on a document in a form wholly misleading and resulting necessarily in third parties being
wholly misled as to the character in which the defendants (Trustee) take the property, I
should be going against all equitable principles if I were to hold that the beneficiaries' equity prevailed over that of other persons acting in complete innocence and misled by the
settlor (one of the plaintiffs) through whom alone the beneficiaries claim, and I should be
wrong if I allowed the equity of the settlor and his beneficiaries to prevail.
The unusual form for the creation of the trust made the beneficiaries' equity less meritorious. The
deed of conveyance indicated an absolute gift, there was nothing on the face of it to show that a
'secret trust' had been engrafted. The case is, however, different from that where a trustee, in order to raise money for his own purposes, fraudulently creates an equitable mortgage in the trust
property and deposit deeds of title with the equitable mortgagee who had no actual or construc60
tive notice that any breach of trust had been committed and was not guilty of any conduct which
would make his equity inferior to the equity of the beneficiaries. Here the equities are equal in
every respect, that being so, that of the beneficiaries which is prior in point of time will prevail.
See Capell v. Winter (1907) 2 Ch. 376, 381.
Fraud and Negligence
Fraud and negligence may, in certain cases, affect the above stated rules of priority. In Northern
Counties of England Fire Insurance Company v. Whipp (1884) 26 Ch. D. 482 at 482, Fry L.J.
stated the following relevant principles. First, the court will postpone the prior legal estate to a
subsequent equitable estate where the owner of the legal estate has assisted in or connived at the
fraud which has led to the creation of a subsequent equitable estate without notice of the prior
legal estate. Such assistance or connivance may be inferred from an omission on the part of the
prior legal owner to use ordinary care in inquiring after or keeping title deeds, especially where
such conduct cannot otherwise be explained. Second, where the mortgagee of the legal estate
has constituted the mortgagor his agent with authority to raise money on the security of the
mortgage, and the estate thus created has by the fraud or misconduct of the agent been
represented as being the first estate.
However, a prior legal estate will not be postponed to a subsequent equitable estate on the ground
of mere carelessness or want of prudence on the part of the legal owner. In Northern Counties'
case (supra), C, the manager of a company had mortgaged his freehold estate to the company and
handed over the title deeds to them. The deeds were kept in a safe of the Company. The safe had
only one lock having duplicate keys, one of which was entrusted to C in his capacity as manager.
Some time afterwards C took the deeds out of the safe without the mortgage, and handed them to
W, to whom at the same time he executed a mortgage for money advanced to him by W who had
no notice, actual or constructive, of the company's security.
The court noted that though there was great carelessness in the manner in which the company
dealt with their securities, the carelessness was no evidence of any fraud as to postpone their prior
legal estate to subsequent equitable estate of W. It was a carelessness likely to injure and not to
benefit the company. Had the company combined with their manager to induce W to lend her
money, the company's prior legal estate would have been postponed. Furthermore, the company
did not constitute C as their agent with authority to raise money on the company's securities. It
was, therefore, held that the mortgage of the company had priority over the mortgage to W.
Gross negligence may deprive a legal owner of his priority. In Oliver v. Hinton (1899) 2 Ch. 264
at 273, the purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice of the prior equitable mortgage
by deposit of the title deeds was postponed on the ground that his failure to ask for and obtain the
title deeds which would have fixed him with notice, amounted to gross negligence sufficient to
deprive him of the protection of the legal estate.
Similarly, in Akingbade v. Elemesho (l954) 1 All N.L.R 154, a purchaser who was in a position to
know of the prior equitable interest but for his gross negligence in finding out the relevant facts
was postponed. (See further, Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222 at 225; Walker v. Linom (1907) 2 Ch. 264, in this case, the trustees failed to obtain the title deeds to the trust property, the
prior interest of the beneficiaries under the trust was, therefore, postponed to that of the subsequent equitable incumbrancer without notice). Thus, it is not essential that a purchaser for value without notice
should have been guilty of fraud before he is deprived of the protection of the legal estate; it is
sufficient that he has been guilty of such gross negligence as would render it unjust to deprive the
prior incumbrancer of his priority. (Oliver v. Hinton at 274)
61

Define notice.
3.2
Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice
The doctrine of bonafide purchaser for value without notice provides the most fundamental distinction between legal and equitable rights in property. The doctrine is equally important in the
determination of priority between rival claimants of interests in property. The essence of the doctrine is that where a defendant has a better equity or a superior title, a court of equity will not deprive such defendant of any right of property, whether legal or equitable, for which he has given
value without notice of the plaintiff's equity. See the following cases, Ajose v. Harworth (1925)
6 N.L.R. 98; Griffin v. Talabi (1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 370; Martins v. Molade (1930) 9 N.L.R. 53.
The plea of purchaser for value without notice becomes relevant where there is competition between
(i)
legal and equitable interests,
(ii) two equitable interests, and
(iii) equitable interest and mere equity.
3.2.1 Bona Fide Purchaser of the Legal Estate for Value Without Notice
Much as Courts of Equity break in upon the common law, when necessity and conscience require it, still they allow superior force and strength to a legal title to estates. Per Lord Herdwicke L.C. in Wortley v. Birkhead (1754) 2 Ves. Sen. 571 at 574. See further, L. & S.W. Railways v. Gomm (1882) 20 Ch.D. 562, 586. Once the plea of bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice is sustained by the court, any other incumbrancers' claims or interests will be postponed.
Both the test and the strength of the plea are illustrated by the decision of James L.J. in Pilcher v.
Rawlins (1872) 7 Ch. App. 259 at 268.
I propose simply to apply myself to the case of a purchaser for valuable consideration,
without notice, obtaining, upon the occasion of his purchase, and by means of his purchase deed, some legal estate, some legal right, some legal advantage; and, according to
my view of the established law of this court, such a purchaser's plea of a purchase for valuable consideration without notice is an absolute, unqualified, unanswerable defence, and
an unanswerable plea to the jurisdiction of this court. Such a purchaser, when he has once
put in that plea, may be interrogated and tested to any extent as to the valuable consideration which he has given in order to show the bona fide or mala fides of his purchaser, and
also, the presence or absence of notice; but when once he has gone through that ordeal,
and has satisfied the terms of the plea of purchase for valuable consideration without notice, then, according to my judgement, this court has no jurisdiction whatever to do anything more than to let him depart in possession of that legal estate, that legal right, that legal advantage which he has obtained, whatever it may be. In such a case a purchaser is entitled to hold that which, without breach of duty, he has had conveyed to him.
In Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 87, the Federal Supreme Court reiterated that
where an estate is affected by an equitable interest, a subsequent purchaser for value will not be
affected by that equitable interest provided he obtained the legal estate, he gave value for the
62
property and he had no notice of the equitable interest at the time (when) he gave his consideration. See further Cole v. Folami (1956) 1 F.S.C. 16; Griffin v. Talabi (1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 370;
Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 226.
The fact that a purchaser had the legal estate conveyed to him is not sufficient to give him priority. In equity, the claim of the prior equitable owner would be preferred if the purchaser of the legal estate had bought the property in dispute with knowledge of the prior equitable interest affecting the property. See Cole v. Folami (supra). However, where the purchaser claims to have
bought the property for value without notice of any equities attaching to the land and such claim
is not disproved, the legal title so obtained by the purchaser will not be disturbed; he takes free
from any prior equitable interest affecting the property.
The following analysis of the plea is instructive:
1. BONAFIDE: For the plea to succeed, the purchaser must establish his good faith. It is essential that he must be innocent of any equity attaching to the property in dispute; that is, he must
not be affected by any notice, actual, constructive or imputed, of a prior equity affecting the
property.
2. PURCHASER FOR VALUE: Since equity will not assist a volunteer, a purchaser who has
not given value for the property takes subject to all prior equitable rights affecting the property.
Value means money or money's worth. See Thorndike v. Hunt (1859) 3 De G. & 1. 563. Marriage consideration is of the very highest value; higher than that of money paid on a purchase.
See Salih v. Archi (1961) A.C. 778, 793. A transfer of property in satisfaction of a pre-existing
debt confers on the transferee the title of a purchaser for value. Such transferee gives valuable
consideration just as much as if he had actually part with money; for, he has given up or parted
with the right to sue in respect of the debt. See Taylor v. Blakelock (1886) 32 Ch.D. 562, 568.
The mere fact that the value given by a purchaser is not adequate is not sufficient to defeat the
plea of bonafide purchaser; it may, however, cast some doubt on the proprietary of the transaction.
3. LEGAL ESTATE: The doctrine requires that the purchaser must have obtained
a legal estate. Having obtained the legal estate for value without notice, the purchaser takes free from all prior equities affecting the property. See the following
cases Cole v. Folami (1956) 1 F.S.C. 66; Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 WA.C.A. 226; Johnson v.
Onisiwo (1943) 9 W.A.C.A. 189. The position may be constrasted with that of the purchaser of an equitable interest for value without notice of prior equities. In this case,
the temporal order of priority applies; provided the equities are equal. See the following: Assaf v. Fuwa (1954) 13 W.A.C.A. 232; Phillips v. Phillips (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 208; Cave v.
cave (1880) 15 Ch.D.639.
The strength of the doctrine lies in the acquisition of the legal estate. See Soremekun v. Sodipo
(1959) L.L.R. 32. If the purchaser is in the process of acquiring the legal estate at the time he
receives notice of prior equitable interest affecting the property, he will be bound by such interest The position is the same even if the purchaser has completed negotiation and offered or paid
the purchase money but the legal estate has not been conveyed to him. See Allen v. Knight
(1846) 5 Hare 272.
Modifications
The emphasis on the acquisition of the legal estate is however subject to qualifications.
63
1. Better or Superior right to Legal Estate:

Where a purchaser acquires an equitable interest without notice of the prior equitable interest affecting the property, and he, by virtue of his equitable interest, subsequently acquires a superior
right to call for the legal estate, he takes precedence over the prior equitable interest. Acquisition of a superior right to legal estate may arise where a third party without notice of the prior
equity, acquires the legal estate as trustee for the subsequent purchaser who must have had no
notice of the prior equity. See Stanhope v. Earl Verney (1761) 2 Eden 81. This qualification
may be justified on two grounds
(i) The beneficiaries and trustees of a trust are one;
(ii) Where the equities are equal, the law prevails.
In Taylor v. London and County Banking Co. (1901) 2 Ch. 231 at 262-263, Stirling L.J. said
'Now, a purchaser for value without notice is entitled to the benefit of a legal title, not merely
where he had actually got it in, but where he has a better title or right to call 'for it. This rule
was laid down in Wilkes v. Bodington (1707) 2 Vern. 599. It has accordingly been held that if a
purchaser for value takes an equitable title only, or omits to get in an outstanding legal estate,
and a subsequent purchaser for value without notice procures, at the time of his purchase, the
person in whom the legal title is vested to declare himself a trustee for him., or even to join as
a party in a conveyance of the equitable interest (although he may not formally convey or declare a trust of the legal estate), still the subsequent purchaser gains priority.'
The above proposition was approved in Assaf v. Fuwa (supra). In that case, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated that before the claim of a better right to call in the legal estate' can displace the operation of the principle 'qui prior est tempore portior est jure' the claimant must show that the owner of the legal estate either (i) had declared an express trust of the
legal estate in his favour or (ii) had joined in the conveyance to him of the legal estate, or (iii)
had lodged the title deeds with him. If there is no such positive act by the owner of the legal
estate, a claim to a better right to call for the legal estate cannot be sustained; mere inertia or
passivity on the part of the owner of the legal estate will not be a substitute.
However, an established better or superior right to legal estate will not avail against a purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice of prior equitable interest. The right to call for
the legal estate is, no doubt, inferior to the actual purchase for value of the legal estate without
notice. An agreement by A to sell to B creates an equitable interest in favour of B who, by virtue of the agreement, has the right to call for the legal estate. But if C, for value and without
notice of B's prior equitable interest, acquires the legal estate from A, he takes free from the
prior equitable interest of B. See Garnham v. Skipper (1885) 55 L.J. Ch. 263.
2. Subsequent Acquisition of Legal Estate. Where a purchaser of an equitable interest in property that is affected by a prior equitable interest subsequently acquires the legal estate, he takes free from the prior equitable interest provided at the time he obtains the equitable interest he had no notice of
the prior equitable interest, and that the legal estate so obtained is not in
breach of trust. See Bailey v. Barnes (1894) 1 Ch. 25, 26. Notice of the prior equitable interest at the time he obtains the legal estate is immaterial.
The position is clearly illustrated by Lindley L.J. in Bailey v. Barnes (supra at
36). 'The maxim Qui prior est tempore portior est jure is in [favour of a prior equitable owner], and
it seems strange that they should, without any default of their own, lose a security which they once
64
possessed. But the above maxim is, in our law, subject to an important qualification, that where equities are equal, the legal title prevails. Equality, here does not mean or refer to priority in point of
time, as is shown by the cases on tacking. Equality means the non-existence of any circumstance
which affects the conduct of one of the rival claimants, and makes it less meritorious than that of the
other. Equitable owners who are upon equality in this respect may struggle for the legal estate, and
he who obtains it, having both law and equity on his side, is in a better situation than he who has equity only.
This doctrine is not confined to tacking mortgages. It also applies in favour of all purchasers of
equitable interests for value without notice of prior equitable interests, who get in the legal estate. It does not however apply to an equitable owner who gets in the legal estate from a trustee
who conveys the legal estate in breach of trust. See, Taylor v. London and County Bank Company (supra).
3. Mere Equities: The distinction between a mere equity and an equitable interest is tenuous, hence the difficulty in ascertaining whether a right in property is an equitable interest or a mere equity. Yet the distinction cannot be avoided because of the attendant consequences. An equitable interest is an established interest in property while a mere equity is a
property right inferior to an equitable interest. See Phillips v. Phillips (1862) 4 De O.F. & J.
208: Latec Investments Ltd. v. Hotel Terrigal Property Ltd. (1965) 113 C.L.R.
265.
A mere equity is binding on a purchaser only if such mere equity is ancillary to or dependent
upon the equitable interest acquired by the purchaser in the property. See National Provincial
Bank Ltd. v. Ainsworth (1965) A.C. 1175. A purchaser of an equitable interest in land need not
obtain the legal estate before he takes free from prior mere equity affecting the property provided
he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice just in the same way as a purchaser for value
of the legal estate without notice takes free from prior equitable interest. See Phillips v. Phillips
(op. cit).
Examples of equitable interests are: estate contracts, a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money;
equitable mortgages; restrictive covenants; interests of beneficiaries under trusts. Mere equities
that will succumb to subsequent equitable interests include the right of a mortgagor to reopen a
foreclosure order, the right to set-aside a conveyance for fraud, the right to set aside a deed for
fraud or undue influence and the right to have documents rectified or set aside for mistake. See
the following cases: Wright v. Dean (1948) Ch. 686; Mackreth v. Symmons (1808) 15 Yes. 329;
Rice v. Rice (1853) 2 Drew 73; 61 E.R. 646; Re Nisbet and Potts' Contract (1905) 1 Ch. 391;
Cave v. Cave (1880) 15 Ch.D. 639; Latec Investments Ltd. v. Hotel Terrigal Property Limited
(1965) 113 C.L.R. 265; Bainbrigge v. Browne (1881) 18 Ch.D. 118; Garrard v. Frankel (1862)
30 Beav. 445;and Smith v. Jones (l954) 1 W.L.R: 1089.
Notice
The function of notice is not to create a property right, it is to prevent the holder of a superior title
from using such title for a purpose that is inconsistent with good faith and honest dealings. See Re
Nisbet and Potts' Contract (1905) 1 Ch. 391; Barker v. Stickney (1919) 1 K.B. 121. The importance
of notice therefore is that it enables a court of equity to bind the conscience of a purchaser of a superior title and forbid him to set up his superior title against prior owners of inferior interest affecting
the property. (Lord Westbury L.C. in Buckland v. Gibbins (1863) 32 L.J. Ch. 391, 395). It is clear
therefore that a purchaser of legal estate with notice of prior equitable interest affecting property
takes subject to the prior equitable interest. See Assaf v. Oyinloye (1951) 20 N.L.R. 1.
65
Basis of the Doctrine

The doctrine of notice is relatively free from artificiality or technicality. Questions and problems
arising from the doctrine have always been decided with reference to simple common sense, justice
and fairplay. As Rhodes J., observed: 'The rules in respect to notice to purchasers of adverse titles or
claims, other than such as is imparted by the records, are not founded upon any arbitrary provisions
of law, but have their origin in the considerations of prudence and honesty which guide men in their
ordinary business transactions.' See Lawton v. Gordon (18699) 37 Cat. 202, 206.
Indeed, it is very much true to say that the doctrine of notice is one of many cases in which equity
has placed high premium on substance and in which, in the accomplishment of its ultimate purpose
to do justice, brushes aside all matters of form or technically except when controlled by statutory requirements. (Lord Cranworth in Ware v. Egmont (1854) 4 De. G: M. & G. 460).
3.3
Definition and Meaning of Notice
Simply put, notice in equity is knowledge of existing fact. It may take one of three forms, viz,
actual, constructive or imputed.
(i) Actual Notice:
This kind of notice speaks for itself. A purchaser has actual or express notice of
prior interest, if, at the time when value was given by him, or at any time before
the completion of the transaction, he was in fact aware of the existence of such
interest. See Joyce, J. in Perham v. Kempster (1907) 1 Ch. 373 at 379; Hummani Ajoke v. A.Y.
Oba (1958) W.N.L.R. 208, 210. Thus, actual notice consists of such personal knowledge of a prior equity affecting property which a purchaser intends or proposes
to buy.
The source of a purchaser's knowledge does not seem to be material: it may be
direct or indirect. See Lawton v. Gordon op. cit.; Lloyd v. Banks (1868) 3 Ch. App. 488.
The important thing to establish before a purchaser is fixed with notice of prior
equity is that the purchaser had actual notice of such equity before he acquires his
superior title. Notice acquired in a previous and distinct transaction is valid and
binding provided it is not too distant to have escaped the memory of a prudent
man of business. However, a purchaser will not be bound by notice whose source
is wholly unreliable and would have been treated as such, by a reasonable and
prudent man of business.
(ii) Constructive Notice:
The practical operation of constructive notice is consistent with the basis of
equitable jurisdiction which is to prevent parties exercising their legal rights in an
unconscionable manner. See G.B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 63 at 67.
The rule of equity is that
where a purchaser has knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on enquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he is
about to purchase, he is presumed either to have made the inquiry, and ascertained the extent of such prior right, or to have been guilty of a degree of
negligence equally fatal to his claim, to be considered as a bona fide purchaser. The presumption, however, is a mere inference of fact, and may be
repelled by proof that the purchaser failed to discover the prior right not66
withstanding the exercise of proper diligence on his part. Per Selden J., in
Williamson v. Brown (1857) 15 N.Y. 354, 362. See further Joyce J. in Berwick v. Price
(1905) L.R. 1 Ch. 632.
Constructive notice is founded on the assumption that the purchaser had no personal knowledge
of the prior interest or equity affecting the property which he proposes to buy. It is enough if it
can be established that he, the purchaser, would have had notice had he made reasonable inquiry
required in the circumstance of the transaction. Where there are sufficient facts calling for an enquiry which would have disclosed the incumbrances affecting the property, and such enquiry is
not made, the purchaser is bound by constructive notice of the incumberances. Failure to make
such inquiry is attributed to want of good faith or gross negligence on the part of the purchaser,
which in each case, destroys his bonafide.
First, a prudent purchaser will call for and investigate the title of his vendor. A purchaser who
fails to make such inquiries will be fixed with notice of all incumbrances affecting the title, for,
such incumbrances would have come to his notice had he made necessary inquiries. In Oliver v.
Hinton (1899) 2 Ch. 264, the proceedings arose from an action to determine the priority of an
equitable mortgagee by deposit of title deeds and a subsequent purchaser for value without notice of the mortgage. The purchaser, who had no notice of the prior equitable mortgage, had
bought the property from the mortgagor. He did not ask for production of the title deeds; there
was no inquiry as to the abstract of title which would have fixed him with notice of the equitable mortgage.
The court held that the purchaser's title should be postponed on the ground that where no inquiry as to title is made and no production of the deeds is asked for, the purchaser acquiring the
legal estate cannot claim in priority to a prior equitable mortgage. It is settled law that a purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice or a prior incumbrance will be postponed if it
is established that either he deliberately abstains from making investigation as to the deeds, or
he is guilty of such gross negligence as would render it unjust to deprive the prior incumbrancer
of his priority. See Akingbade v. Elemesho (1964) 1 All N.L.R 154. A purchaser need not be
guilty of any fraud or dishonest conduct before being postponed to a prior equitable incumbrancer.
In Labinjo v. Olufunmise Suit No. LD/355/68 (unreported), the trustees of a trust under which
the plaintiff was a beneficiary, sold in breach of trust, the trust property situates at 20 Glover
Street, Lagos, to the defendant who claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of the
legal estate without notice. He, however, admitted under cross-examination by the plaintffs
counsel that he made no enquiries or caused any investigation to be made as to the interests (if
any) which affected the title of his vendor. The court held that in accordance with section 3(1)
of the Conveyancing Act 1882, the defendant had constructive notice of the plaintiffs prior
equitable interest. It was clear that the defendant would have had notice of the plaintiff's equitable interest had he made such inquiries and investigations which ought reasonably to have been
made by a prudent man of business. Thus, the purchaser's claim of bona fide was destroyed by
his failure to investigate. Therefore, he was held to be constructive trustee of the legal estate for
the benefit of the plaintiff.
Second, where there is sufficient evidence disclosing that the purchaser of the legal estate had
knowledge of facts which would enable him to acquire notice of prior equitable interest and
which he could have acquired had he made further investigation, the purchaser will be deemed
to have had notice. It will not be sufficient for the purchaser to show that he had no actual no67
tice. See Ware v. Lord Egmount, op. cit.

In Ogunbambi v. Abowab (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 222, the defendant claimed that he was a purchaser of the legal estate for value and without notice of the plaintiff's prior equity affecting the
property. It was, however, established in evidence that he had, earlier on, sought to purchase the
property from the plaintiff and that, upon his offer being refused, he sought and obtained a conveyance from another party, whom he knew to be out of possession. He did not make any enquiry or investigation which would have disclosed to him the nature of the interest which he had
himself believed to be vested in the plaintiff from whom he had sought to purchase. It was held
that the defendant could have acquired knowledge of the prior equitable interest of the plaintiff
but for his gross or culpable negligence, he was, therefore, presumed to have had notice of the
plaintiff's equitable interest.
Occupation of land by a person other than the vendor constitutes notice to the purchaser. See the
following cases: Kabba & Anor v. D. S. Young (1944) 10 W.A.C.A. 135; Daniels v. Davison (1809)
33 E.R. 978; and Omosanya v. Anifowoshe (1959) 4 F.S.C. 94. Reason and common-sense demand
that a purchaser should inspect land he intends to buy with a view to ascertaining (i) if there is
any person in occupation, and (ii) the rights or interests which such person may have or posses in
the land. In Hunt v. Luck (1902) 1 Ch. 428 at 433, Vaughan Williams L.J. described the position
as follows: 'It means that, if a purchaser or a mortgagor is not in possession of the property he
must make inquiries of the person in possession - of the tenant who is in possession - and find out
from him what his rights are, and, if he does not choose to do that then whatever title he acquires
as purchaser or mortgagee will be subject to the title or right of the tenant in possession.' A tenant
in possession under an informal lease has equities which he could enforce against the vendor as
well as against the purchaser from the vendor, (see Kabba & Anor v. D. S. Young, (supra)). Therefore, a person purchasing when there is a tenant in possession, if he neglects to inquire into the
title or to inspect the land must take, subject to such right as the tenant may have. See Olowu v.
Oshinubi (1958) L.L.R 21.
In Sanusi Imam v. Sanni Dawodu (1960) W.N.L.R. 150, the plaintiff had been digging and carrying
away sand from the land since 1948 under a licence granted by one Onikoro family, the owners
of the land. In.1956, the same family granted, in respect of the same land, similar licence to the
defendant. In 1957, the plaintiff obtained a deed of grant of a lease from the same family under
which the plaintiff could continue to dig and carry-away sand from the land. The plaintiff
brought this action claiming exclusive right to dig and carry away sand from the land. He contended that the grant of 1957, gave him absolute legal estate in the land. In the course of his
judgment, Duffus J., observed: 'The lease does in my view grant the plaintiff an exclusive right
to dig sand in this river. This grants the plaintiff a legal estate but it must be subject to any existing tenancy or equitable rights of which he had notice. I am satisfied that the plaintiff had actual
notice of the defendant's occupation ... Apart from this, the defendant's possession and use of his
rights to dig sand has been openly carried out, and possession of a tenant is notice to a purchaser
of the actual interest he may have.
The equity of the tenant in possession extends not only to interests connected with his tenancy, but also to interests under collateral agreements. See (G. B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija
(1950) 13 WAC.A 63, 67; Barnhart v. Greenshields (1893) 9 Moo P.C.C. 18). Thus, where a
purchaser is presumed to be affected with constructive notice of the tenant's possession, he is further presumed to have had the notice of the contents of the instrument (if any) under which the
tenant occupies the property. A purchaser who proposes to buy the reversion of a lease is bound
to inquire on what terms the lessee is in possession. The mere fact that he is misinformed as to
68
the contents of the lease may not be sufficient to relieve him of the duty imposed on a purchaser
to make enquiry as may be reasonably necessary in the circumstance.'
In Patman v. Harland (1881) 17 Ch.D. 353, Jessel, MR. said:
Now it has been argued before me that if the lessee, having this constructive notice, be told by the
lessor that there is no restrictive covenant, that that representation will in equity do away with the
effect of constructive notice. I entirely dissent from that proposition. Constructive notice of a deed
is constructive notice of its contents . If therefore you have notice of a deed relating to the title,
and forming part of the chain of title, you have notice of the contents of that deed, and it is no
excuse for not asking to look at it to say that you were told that the deed contained nothing which it
was necessary for you to look at. Otherwise, in every case, you might be satisfied with a statement
of the contents of the deed without going to look at it Of course, there may be cases when the deed
cannot be got at or for some other reason where, with all the exercise of prudence in the world, you
cannot see it, and then there may be no constructive notice; but that is another question; Where you
know, it is no answer at all to be told that it does not prejudically affect your title.
In Crayen v. Consolidated African Selection Trust Ltd (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 443 at 448, the plaintiffs took a lease of a property that was subject to an equitable lease of the defendant who was in
possession. The defendant's lease agreement contained an option for renewal. When the defendant proposed to exercise his option to renew in accordance with the terms of his lease, the plaintiffs brought this action claiming possession on the ground that they had no notice of the defendant's option to renew. In support of this contention, they relied on the information given to them
by the lessor. Lewey, J.A., delivering the judgement of the West African Court of Appeal said:
'Having regard to the authorities and the circumstances of the present case, we hold that the appellants were put on enquiry by reason of the fact that they had notice of the respondents' lease. Had
they inspected it, or made enquiries from the respondents they could have found that it contained
an option for renewal. But as they neglected to do this and chose to rely upon the landlord's assurance they must suffer the consequences, for the respondents, being in no fault, cannot be deprived of their rights under their lease.'
Section 70(1) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (W.N.) 1959, requires a purchaser to investigate the root of title of his vendor for the last 3O years, otherwise he is deemed to have notice of
all equitable interests affecting the vendor's title to the property within the full statutory period of
30 years. However, where an intended lessee is prevented from calling for the title to the freehold
or to the leasehold reversion, he will not be affected with notice of any matter or thing of which
he might have had notice, if he had contracted that such title should be furnished. In addition,
section 70(6) of the Law provides that a purchaser will not be affected with notice of any matter
or thing of which, if he had investigated the title or made reasonable enquiries in regard to matters prior
to the period of commencement of title fixed under section 70(1) or by any other statute, or any rule of
law, he might have had notice, unless he actually makes such investigation or enquiries.
Section 194(1)(i) and (ii) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (W.N.) 1959, which is a substantial reenactment of section (3)(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1881, a statute of general application re-stated the
equitable doctrine of constructive notice, though in a negative form. According to the provision, a purchaser shall not be prejudicially affected by notice of any instrument or matter or any fact or thing unless it is
within his own knowledge, or would have come to his knowledge if such inquiries and inspections had
been made as ought reasonably to have been made by him.
The general view of the provision seems to be that the doctrine of notice ought, not to be extended. In English and Scottish Mechantile Investment Company v. Brunton (1892) 2 Q.B. 700 at 707-708, Lord Esher
69
M.R said:
when a man has statements made to him, or has knowledge of facts, which do not expressly tell
him of something which is against him, and he abstains from making further inquiry because he
knows the result would be- or, as the phrase is, he "wilfully shuts his eyes" - then judges are in the
habit of telling juries that they may infer that he did know what was against him. It is an inference
of fact drawn because you cannot look into a man's mind, but you can infer from his conduct
whether he is speaking truly or not when he says that he did not know of particular facts. There is no
question of constructive notice or constructive knowledge involved which is inferred. Constructive
notice or knowledge, as I have said, is an equitable doctrine wholly; it is a doctrine not known to
the common law, but it must now be dealt with and acknowledged by the courts which administer
the common law It is, therefore necessary for us to see how far the doctrine extends and is to be carried out, and to consider its nature and limits as laid down by the judges who invented and have applied it. Of late years, after the doctrine had been invented and put into form, the Chancery judges
saw that it was being carried must farther than had been intended, and they declined to carry it further.
No doubt, the doctrine of constructive notice is a dangerous one in that it is contrary to the truth; it is wholly founded on the assumption that purchaser does not know the facts; and yet it is said that constructively
he does know them. Therefore, the doctrine ought not to be extended further, otherwise, it may defeat the
end of justice which the judges who invented it wanted to serve. In Bailey v. Barnes (1894) 1 Ch. 25 at 35,
Lindley L.J. gave expression to the judicial attitude limiting the application of the doctrine. He said, with
reference to section 3 of the Conveyancing Act 1882. 'The Conveyancing Act, 1882, really does no more
than state the law as it was before, but its negative form shows that a restriction rather than extension of the
doctrine of notice was intended by the Legislature.'
The section is construed not to import a duty or obligation; for a purchaser need not make inquiry. The
standard of diligence required of a purchaser is not a very high one, however, his conduct in the transaction must not fall below that of a reasonable man, having regard to what is usually done by me~
of business under similar circumstances. See further Taylor v. London and County Banking
Company (1901) 2 Ch. 231, at 258-259.
(iii) Imputed Notice:
This is a kind of notice which is neither actual nor constructive to the purchaser, but which is imputed to him through the actual or constructive knowledge of his agent is a settled principle that notice to an agent is notice to the
principal. If we held otherwise it would cause great inconveniences, and notice would be avoided in every case by employing agents. See Sheldon v. Cox
(1764) 2 Eden 224.
Notice will be imputed to a purchaser only through his bonafide agent. See Orasanmi v. Idowu
(1959) 4 F.S.C. 40 at 42. A purchaser who instructed his agent to purchase a property at an auction sale is affected by notice of an equity which has come to the knowledge of his agent in the
course of the transaction. See G. B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 63 at 67. A vendor is not an agent of the purchaser, therefore, notice to the vendor or his agent cannot be imputed to the purchaser since the whole basis of the equitable principle of a bona fide purchaser for
value without notice is to protect a purchaser from the fraud of his vendor. However, the purchaser will be bound by such notice if there is evidence that he had any such notice, actual or
constructive. See Omosanya v. Anifowoshe (1959) 4 F.S.C. 94 at 99
Barristers and solicitors are, in most cases, agents of purchasers for the purposes of purchasing
70
land. 'It has been said over and over again that notice to a solicitor of a transaction, and about a
matter as to which it is a part of his duty to inform himself, is actual notice to the client. Mankind
would not be safe if it were held that, under such circumstances, a man has not notice of that
which his agent has actual notice of.' Per Lord Hatheley in Rolland v. Hart (1871) L.R 6 Ch. 678
at 681-2. See further Jared v. Clements (1903) 1 Ch.428. Notice or information acquired by a solicitor in a previous transaction used to affect through the doctrine of imputed notice, his principal in a subsequent transaction. See Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 226 and Fuller v. Bennett (1843) 2 Hare.394. This rule is capable of producing untold hardship if notice in every transaction that comes to the solicitor is imputed to his principals in subsequent transactions. The rule
was modified in Mountford v. Scott.(1823) Turn & R 275; 37 E.R 1105.
Now, information acquired by a solicitor in one transaction cannot affect, through the doctrine
of imputed notice, his principal in a subsequent transaction. Section 136 subsection 1 (ii) of the
Conveyancing Act, 1882, (a statute of general application) now provides that a purchaser shall
not be prejudicially affected by notice of any instrument, fact or thing unless in the same transaction with respect to which a question of notice to the purchaser arises that it has come to the
knowledge of his solicitor or other agent, as such, or would yet come to the knowledge of his solicitor or other agent, as such, if such inquiries and inspections been made as ought reasonably to have been
made by the solicitor or other agent. See similar provision in section 194. (1)(ii)(b) of the Property
and Conveyancing Law (W.N.) 1959.
This section has been judicially construed in ln re Cousins (1886) 31 Ch.D.671 at 677. In the course
of his judgment, Chitty J. said: There must be something which comes to the knowledge of the solicitor as
such and in the transactions. The words come to the knowledge are not unimportant and seem to me to
afford the answer to the argument that Banks had knowledge because he formerly knew. The section says
"come to the knowledge" and I cannot impute to him that the knowledge had come to him in this transaction because he knew it on the former occasion. To do that would destroy the section. Every word of it
requires careful weighing and the result is (1) that it must be in the same transaction, (2) the matter must
come to the knowledge, and (3) must come to the knowledge of his Solicitor as such viz, as solicitor of
the mortgagee.
In Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 WACA 226 at 231, the West African Court of Appeal held that notice
that comes to the knowledge of a solicitor in a previous transaction cannot be imputed to a purchaser in a
subsequent transaction. A solicitor is not under any duty to communicate his knowledge in a previous
transaction to the purchaser when the latter subsequently becomes his client. However, when the same solicitor acts for both parties to a transaction, any notice he acquires is imputed to both parties, unless there
are facts disclosing that he has conspired with one to the detriment and disadvantage of the other, in which
case, that other will have the protection of the doctrine of bona fide purchaser without notice. See
Sharpe v. Foy (1868) 4 Ch. App. 35.
In Ohiaeri v. Yussuf & Ors. (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) p. 207, the Court held that:
It is only a subsequent bonafide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice that can take
priority over someone who had acquired a prior equitable interest over the property. And without
notice means that the purchaser must have no notice of the existence of the equitable interest, that
is, he must have neither actual notice nor constructive notice nor imputed notice. If the purchaser
employs an agent such as a solicitor, any actual or constructive notice which the agent receives is
imputed to the purchaser. In the instant case, there was uncontroverted evidence that the same solicitor who brought the 2nd and 3rd respondents together and facilitated the sale of the property to the 2nd
respondent was also the agent of the appellant and facilitated the conveyance of the property by the
3rd and 4th respondents to the appellant. Therefore the notice, actual or constructive, of the prior
71
equitable interest by the solicitor was imputed to the appellant. The appellant could not claim protection under the doctrine of innocent purchaser for value without notice.
The equitable doctrine of notice was evolved to prevent parties exercising their legal rights in an unconscionable manner (Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950 13 W.A.C.A. 63), but the doctrine will not be carried to
such an extent as to defeat an honest purchaser or prevent a bona fide purchaser from dealing freely with
his property. See Lord Cranworth in Ware v. Egmout (1854) 4 De G., M. & G. 460. Thus a person who
derives his title from a purchaser with notice takes free of the equity. Notice to the vendor or his agent is
no notice to the purchaser or vendor's successor in title unless the purchaser is himself bound by such notice. See Onasanya v. Anifowowshe (supra).
A person who derives title from a bonafide purchaser without notice takes free of the equity notwithstanding that he had notice of the equity. See the following cases: Barrow case (1880) 14 Ch. D. 432 at 445;
Experte Sandys (1889) 42 Ch. D. 98 at 110; and Wilkies v. Spooner (1911) 2 KB 475. However, a trustee,
who, in breach of trust, sells trust property to a purchaser without notice, and who, subsequently purchases
the property from the purchaser, will be deemed to hold the property subject to the trusts. Equity will not
allow a person to profit from his own fraud. See Barrows case (supra).

Discuss the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
4.0
CONCLUSION
The doctrine of constructive notice is a dangerous one in that it is contrary to the truth; it is wholly founded
on the assumption that purchaser does not know the facts; and yet it is said that constructively he does
know them. Therefore, the doctrine ought not to be extended further, otherwise, it may defeat the end of
justice which the judges who invented it wanted to serve. The equitable doctrine of notice was evolved to
prevent parties exercising their legal rights in an unconscionable manner. But the doctrine will not be carried to such an extent as to defeat an honest purchaser or prevent a bona fide purchaser from dealing
freely with his property.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit we have considered priority and the equitable doctrine of notice. You should now be
able to: explain Priority; discuss the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice; and
define notice.
6.0
Explain the doctrine of notice.
7.0
72
UNIT 3
ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSES IN ACTION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Definition of a chose in action
3.2
Distinction between a chose in action and a chose in possession
3.3
Assignment
3.4
Types of Assignment
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we examined. In this unit, we will consider the assignment of choses in action.
The subject, assignment of choses in action, provides another illustration of the distinction between the rigid approach of the common law court and the flexible approach of the Chancery
court in the administration of justice before 1873.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Define a chose in action;

Distinguish between a chose in action and a chose in possession; and
Discuss the various types of Assignment.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Definition of a chose in action
A chose in action has been defined as a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights
of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession. See Torkington v. Magee (1902) 2 K.B. 427 at 430. It is a proprietary right in property; a
right of recognisable economic value, though it has no tangible or physical existence and therefore
not capable of being physically possessed. Being an abstract right in property, if it is infringed or
wrongfully or unlawfully detained, it can only be protected, claimed or enforced by action and not
by taking physical possession.
Examples of choses in action include rights to debts, shares in a joint stock company and in/or in
partnership property, debentures in a limited company (see In Re Pryce, Ex Parte Rensburg
(1877) 4 Ch.D. 685), policies of assurance, negotiable instruments, bills of lading, patent rights.
copyrights, trade mark, rights of action arising from a contract e.g. right to damages for its breach,
rights arising by reason of the commission of tort or other civil wrong e.g. right of liquidator
against directors of a company for misfeasance;4 rights of a beneficiary in a trust fund and rights
under legacies. Generally the expression 'choses in action' denotes incorporeal personal property.
See Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1885) 30. Ch.D. 261.
73
3.2
Distinction between a chose in action and a chose in possession
'All personal things are either in possession or in action. The law knows no tertium quid between
the two.' See Colonial Bank v. Whinney (supra) at 285 per Fry, L.J. A chose in possession subsists only where the owner has both the right to enjoy and the occupation of the chose itself. See
Colonial Bank v. Whinney (supra) at 275, 286.
Therefore, choses in possession may be said to consist of corporeal chattels which by their nature
can be the subject of physical possession and enjoyment. A chose in possession, being a tangible
object, with actual physica1 existence, its possession and, if intended, ownership will pass by physical delivery. For example, a fountain pen is a chose in possession; if it is wrongfully or unlawfully
detained, the, owner may recover it in specie; similarly furniture, cattle, motor-car; are all choses in
possession; possession and ownership in them may pass by physical delivery. Again they may be
taken and sold in execution of a judgment in a personal action.
On the other hand, if A lends B N20 and B refuses to repay A, A can no longer seize the N20 in
specie, all he can lawfully do is to sue B for the debt. The right to the debt created by the loan
transaction between and B is a chose in action. As Farwell J. pointed out in British Mutoscope v.
Homer (1901) 1 Ch.671, a chose in action has no physical existence, it cannot be found upon a
demised premises, it has no locality arid is incapable of manual seizure; thus it could not, at common law, be taken by execution under a writ of fieri facias or levari facias.
Classification of Choses in Action
A chose in action may be either legal or equitable. A legal chose in action is a right enforceable
and recoverable by an action at law e.g. a debt or benefit under a contract.
An equitable chose in action or a chose in equity is a right which owes its existence to a subject
matter which before 1873 would have been recognised only by the Chancery Court. Such right
was enforceable and recoverable only by what was formally called a suit in equity. Examples are
rights and interests of a beneficiary in trust fund, interest under a legacy and right to a relief
against forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rents, beneficial interest in a partnership and, reversionary interest under a will. Generally these choses arise out of proprietary rigi1ts in respect of
which the Chancery court formally exercised exclusive jurisdiction.
There is also future chose in action. This may either be legal or equitable. It is a right in respect of
property which has not fallen into possession but which is to be acquired at a future date. Thus, the
interest upon which the chose depends for its existence has not come into possession, for example,
right of a beneficiary to a legacy under his father's will when the father is still alive, copyright of a
book which is to be written at a future date.
How can we classify a chose in action?
3.3
Assignment
Simply put, is a transfer of a right. Where A is indebted to B for a sum of money, B's right to recover the money from A is a chose in action. If B assigns the right to C, B becomes the assignor
while C becomes the assignee of the right which C can enforce against A. Such assignment need
74
not be with the consent of A, who is liable to discharge the liability to C, the assignee.
The question of consent brings out the fundamental distinction between assignment and novation.
A valid assignment of a debt may be made between the assignor and the assignee without the consent or even knowledge of the debtor, but in the case of novation, consent of the debtor is a sine
qua non to its validity, that is, all the parties concerned must give their consent, since the effect of
novation which is a tripartite agreement, is to rescind the original agreement between two parties
and replace it by a new contract. Thus a new creditor may be substituted for the original creditor or
a new debtor for the original debtor. In all cases the original contract will cease to exist.
In G.B. Ollivant & Co. v. Effioms Transport (1934) 2 W.A.C.A. 91, the West African Court of
Appeal held that the defendants, a party to the original contract, could not be held liable under the
contract because there had been novation, a new contract between the plaintiffs and a new firm,
(known at first as 'Effioms Transport and Engineering Company' and later, after the necessary formalities had been completed, as 'Effioms Transport and Engineering Co. Ltd.') having been substituted for the original contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants with the consent of all the
parties.
Distinguish between Assignment and Novation.
3.4
Types of Assignment
Common Law
At common law, no debt or other chose in action could be validly assigned, unless the debtor or
the person to discharge the liability assented to the assignment. One of the reasons for the rule
against assignment at common law was that assignment 'would be the occasion of multiplying of
contentious and suits of great oppression of the people ... and the subversion of the due and equal
execution of justice. 'See Lampet's Case (1613) 10 Co. Rep. 46(b) at 48(a); 77 E.R. 994.
Another ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement of assignment was to avoid the risk of
maintenance and champerty. See Bailey, 'Assignments of Debts in England from the 12th Century to the 20th Century, (1931) 47 L.Q.R. 516; (1932) 48 L.Q.R. 248 and 547. Thus, at common
law a debt presently due and payable was looked upon as a strictly personal obligation, and an
assignment of it was regarded as a mere assignment of a right to bring an action at law against
the debtor. Hence, the assignment was looked upon as open to the objection of maintenance.
However, anyone who had a pecuniary interest in the debt was allowed to sue in the name of the
creditor. See Fitzroy v. Cave (190.5) 2 K.B. 364.
Nevertheless, Farewell, L.J. in Defries v. Milne (1913) 1 Ch. 98 at 110-111, expressed the risk of
maintenance and blackmail in assignment. He said 'It would be exceedingly bad policy to allow a
person to sell rights of action for tort which he did not care to run the risk of enforcing himself;
as for example to allow a liquidator to put such rights up for auction and sell them to someone
who might buy for a small sum of money the chance of recovering a larger sum or possibly of
blackmailing.'
The personal nature and character of the obligation upon which the right assigned depends and
the fear of the debtor's prison was another reason for the disinclination of the common law to
75
recognise or enforce assignment. Common law emphasised the possibility of each of the two parties to the obligation having reposed confidence in the personal character of the other and as such
might not have envisaged dealings in respect of the obligation with any other party. Thus a debtor usually reposed some confidence in his creditor, believing that the creditor would normally
refrain from proceeding to extremities; this accounted for the common law view of a debt as a
personal relation. 'In general Common Law uncompromisingly viewed any attempted assignment
as an intrusion by a third party into a quarrel between two others.' See Hanbury, Modern Equity.
(8th Ed.) 1962 p. 73.
Exceptions
The Common Law permitted exception from its general prohibition of assignment. First, the
King could assign or receive a chose in action. Second, the common law recognised and adopted
the rule of the Law Merchant whereby a negotiable instrument in a negotiable state was assignable. Apparent exceptions were the enforcement of tripartite agreement, that is, novation and, assignment of a debt provided such assignment was coupled with an irrevocable power of attorney
to sue for it.
Again, as Ames (The Disseisin of Chattels (1890) 3 Harv. L.Rev. 337-339) noted, certain obligations, by the tenor of which the obligor expressly bound himself to the obligee and his assigns,
could be enforced at common law, by an assignee or a transferee. In his view, the significance of
this exception lies in the fact that it goes to show the reason for the rule which prohibits the assignment of rights action in general. This was to discourage 'the multiplying of contentious and
suits'. Bailey also noted that before the 18th century, if a debtor paid his creditor knowing that
the latter had assigned the debt, the assignee could sue him, even at law by using the creditor's
name, on the ground of fraud.
Assignment in Equity
Here equity did not follow the law. From the early times courts of equity have always permitted
and enforced assignments of all kinds of choses in action. Thus in Rodick v. Gandell (1852) 1 De
G.M. & G. 763 at 777, Lord Truro said 'An agreement between a debtor and a creditor that the
debt owing shall be paid out of a specific fund coming to the debtor, or an order given by a debtor to his creditor upon a person owing money or holding funds belonging to the giver of the order, directing such person to pay such funds to the creditor, will create a valid equitable charge
upon such fund; in other words, will operate as an equitable assignment of the debts or fund to
which the order refers. '
The reason for the Chancery's flexible attitude towards recognition and enforcement of assignment of choses in action can be seen in the observation of Cozens-Hardy, L.J. in Fitzroy v. Cave
(1905) 2 K.B. 364 at 372. 'At common law a debt was looked upon as a strictly personal obligation, and an assignment of it was regarded as a mere assignment of a right to bring an action at
law against the debtor. Hence the assignment was looked upon as open to the objection of maintenance .... But the Courts of Equity took a different view. They admitted the title of an assignee
of a debt, regarding it as a piece of property, an asset capable of being dealt with like any other
asset, and treating the necessity of an action at law to get it in as a mere incident '.
Here equity makes a distinction between matters of substance and matters of form. The transaction between the assignor and the assignee confers right of property on the latter, because in equity an assignment operates by way of agreement binding the conscience of the assignor, and so
76
binding the property, the subject-matter of the assignment, from the moment when the contract
becomes capable of being performed. See Tailby v. Official Receiver (1888) 13 App. Cas. 523 at
546.
This right of property is, in equity, a matter of substance to be distinguished from the assignor's
common law right of action to get in the right of property assigned. This right of action is, in the
eye of equity a matter of form being incidental to the right of property. Much as equity recognises the assignor's right of action at law, it would not permit the assignor to make use of this right
to defeat the right of property conferred on the assignee. Thus, the rule is clearly laid down that
in a suit to enforce an equitable assignment of a legal chose in action, the assignee must join the
name of the assignor as co-plaintiff. This is in recognition of the legal right of the assignor to
demand the chose. If the assignor refused his consent, he would be joined as defendant and could
be further restrained in equity from exercising his right of action at law. On the other hand where
the chose assigned is equitable the assignee could bring the action in his own name.
Assignment and Mandate
Before a transaction can be regarded as an assignment, there must have been a specific direction
given as to how a particular subject-matter of the transaction has to be disposed of. Such direction must give right or interest to a third party in the subject-matter of the transaction. On the
other hand, a mandate is more of an intimation or the mere giving of an information by one party
to the other as to the disposition of a subject-matter. This form of direction merely constitutes a
mandate which does not give right or interest to a third party in the subject-matter of the
mandate.
In Scott v. Porcher (1817) 3 Mer. 652 at 664, H. & Co. made a consignment of pearls to B with
directions to sell and pay the proceeds to P on account. B acknowledged the receipt of the consignment and undertook to comply with the directions but no notice was given by either party to
P. H. & Co. subsequently wrote to B requesting that the pearls be sent to America, and there disposed of; and afterwards being insolvent H. & Co. made an assignment of all their effects in trust
for the benefit of their creditors. The question was whether there was an assignment to P. It was
held that the directions accompanying the consignment did not constitute an irrevocable appropriation but amounted to no more than a mere mandate which can give no right or interest to a third
party in subject-matter of the mandate. It may also be revoked at any time before it is executed or
at least before any engagement is entered into with a third person to execute it for his benefit.
Also in Watson v. Duke of Wellington (1830) 1 R. & M. 602, where there was only an intimation
that particular persons where claimants upon a fund and not a direction that the debt should be
paid, Sir John Leach M.R. held that in order to constitute an equitable assignment, there must be
an engagement to payout of a particular fund. Neither will a letter from a banker stating that a
special credit for a specified amount had been opened, under instruction, in favour of the person
to whom the letter was addressed, constitute an equitable assignment. See Morgan v. Lariviere
(1875) L.R. 7 H.L. 423. This was nothing but a mere statement by bankers that they have opened
a credit, under instructions which they have received, in favour of a particular person.
Form
The validity of an equitable assignment does not depend on any particular form in as much as the
intention to assign is clear. Since equity looks on the intent rather than to the form, the form of
words used in the transaction is immaterial so long as they show an intention that the assignee is
to have the benefit of the right assigned under the transaction. See Gorringe v. Invell India Rubber
77
Works (1886) 34 Ch.D. 128. Once the intent to assign is ascertained such assignment becomes
effective in equity even if it is made by word of mouth. It is immaterial whether the subjectmatter is a legal or equitable chose.
In William Brandts Sons and Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1905) A.C 454 at 462, the Court of
Appeal had decided that certain transaction was not an assignment on the ground that the document did not on the face of it purport to be an assignment nor did it use the language of an assignment. The House of Lords took a different view. And in response to the decision of the Court
of Appeal, Lord Macnaghten stated that an equitable assignment does not always take that form.
It may be couched in the language of command. It may be a courteous request. It may assume the
form of mere permission. The language is immaterial if the meaning is plain.
Thus, in London and Yorks Bank v. White (1895) 11 T.L.R. 570, where there was a verbal
agreement to assign, as security, the assignor's interest in certain goods, such was held to be effective as an equitable assignment. In Thomas v. Harris (1947) 1 ALL E.R. 444, Lord Scott, in
the Court of Appeal held that under the binding oral contract between the father and the son, the
father intended to give to the son a charge on certain life assurance policies and that such a
charge amounted to an assignment in equity of the policies to the extent of the charge on them.
However, by statute, disposition of certain interest is required to be in writing. Section 9 of the Statute of Fraud 1677, (a statute of general application) and section 78(1)(c) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (Western Nigeria) 1959 provide that 'A disposition of an Equitable Interest or Trust
subsisting at the time of the disposition must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the
same or by his agent thereinto lawfully authorised in writing or by will'. This provision is equivalent
to Section 53(1)(c) of the United Kingdom Law of Property Act, 1925. Here equity follows the law.
Therefore, an oral assignment of a right or interest arising under a subsisting trust will not be effective as it will offend this statutory provision. In Grey v. L.R.C (1959) 3 W.L.R. 758, certain shares in
a company were held in trust for B who orally directed that the shares be held for another person.
Lord Radcliffe held that the assignment was ineffective because it was a disposition within Section
53(1)(c) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which required such assignment to be in writing. See further Oughtred v. I.R.C. (1959) 3 W.L.R. 898.
4.0
CONCLUSION
The validity of an equitable assignment does not depend on any particular form in as much as the
intention to assign is clear. Since equity looks on the intent rather than to the form, the form of
words used in the transaction is immaterial so long as they show an intention that the assignee is to
have the benefit of the right assigned under the transaction.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered assignment of choses in action. You should be able to define a
chose in action; distinguish between a chose in action and a chose in possession; and discuss
the various types of Assignment.
6.0
(i) Distinguish between common law assignment and assignment in equity.
(ii) Distinguish between a chose in action and a chose in possession.
78
7.0
Megarry and Wade, Law of Real Property, 3rd edition et seq.
UNIT 4
CONVERSION AND RECONVERSION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Importance of the Doctrine of conversion
3.2
Types of Circumstances in which the doctrine is operative
3.3
Failure of Conversion
3.4
Reconversion
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we examined assignment of choses in action. In this unit, we will consider the
doctrine of conversion and reconversion. Bowen, L.J. once said: 'It is an established principle in equity that when money is directed or agreed to be turned into land, or land agreed or directed to be turned
into money, equity will treat that which is agreed to be or which ought to be done as done already, and
impresses upon the property that species of character for the purpose of devolution and title into which it
is bound ultimately to be converted.' Att. Gen. v. Hubbuck (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 275, 289.
The equitable doctrine of conversion rests on the maxim that equity regards as done what ought to be
done. The doctrine becomes relevant wherever there is an obligation arising under a will, trust, contract or
court order, to sell or purchase land. In equity, even though the obligation has not been carried out, the
existence of such obligation is sufficient to fix the rights of the parties and to determine the nature and
character of such rights as they would have been if the obligation had in fact been performed. This leads
to the fictitious and artificial nature of the doctrine.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
3.0
Explain the importance of the doctrine of conversion;

List the types of circumstances in which the doctrine is operative;
Discuss Failure of Conversion; and
Explain the doctrine of reconversion.
MAIN CONTENT
79
In the language of Langdell, A direct equitable conversion differs from a direct actual conversion in this,
namely, that while the latter is a fact, the former is a pure fiction. To say, indeed, that a direct equitable conversion is other than a pure fiction would be to claim for equity those miraculous powers which the ancient
alchemists claimed for themselves .... The immediate object of the direct equitable conversion is to cause a
thing to devolve, on the death of its owner, not according to its true nature and quality, but according to the
nature and quality which equity, by a fiction, attributes to it, for example, to cause land to devolve as if it
were money or money as if it were land. (Equitable Conversion (1904) 18, Harv.L.Rev.83 at 245). The notional or fictitious conversion usually become effective at the date of the instrument expressing the intention,
if a deed or contract, and if a will, at the date of the testator's death.
In Fletcher v. Ashburer (1779) 1 Bro.C.C.497, 28 E.R. 1259, Sir Thomas Sewell M.R. attempted to justify the development of the doctrine when he said that nothing was better established than this principle, that
money directed to be employed in the purchase of land, and land directed to be sold and turned into money
are to be considered as that species of property into which they are directed to be converted; and this in whatever manner the direction is given: whether by will, by way of contract, marriage articles, settlement or otherwise, and whether the money is actually conveyed or only agreed to be conveyed; the owner of the land, or
the contracting parties, may make land money or money land. The cases establish this rule universally.
The practical operation of the doctrine as conceived by Sewell,M.R., may be said to have conditioned the
development of the doctrine of conversion. Maitland, in his book Lectures on Equity (2nd Edn.) p.277,
was of the view that the equitable doctrine of conversion is the outcome of the fact that England had
two systems of intestate succession, the one for realty, the other for personalty; and that but for that
unfortunate fact there would have been no need of the doctrine. He went further to say that the doctrine has its root in the simple principle that when property has been given to a trustee it must not be
in the power of that trustee to alter the devolution of the beneficial interests by committing a breach
of trust. Keeton thought that the development of the doctrine at the beginning of the 18th century
can be traced to the unfairness of allowing trustees prejudicially to affect the interests of beneficiaries by postponing sales or purchases of land. No doubt the doctrine is designed to promote justice
and also to assist the owner of the subject-matter of conversion in the accomplishment of his objective as regard the ultimate devolution or distribution of his property in accordance with his presumed intention.
3.1
Importance of the Doctrine
Practically, the doctrine is of little significance in Nigeria, hardly can one find a single reported
case in which the doctrine has been applied. Even, in England where the doctrine originated, the
importance of the doctrine has declined since the property legislation of 1925. As Maitland
rightly observed, the doctrine would not have been evolved, but for the fact that before 1926,
England had two systems of intestate succession, the one for realty and the other for personalty.
Furthermore, the law made and still makes a distinction between what is real property and what
is personal property. Before 1926, on intestacy, real property devolved in one way and personalty in another; it was, therefore, important to ascertain by reference to the application of the doctrine of conversion what property of the deceased intestate could be classified as realty and that
which could be said to be personalty before the heir's interest and that of the next-of-kin could
be accurately determined. By the then applicable law, the heir was entitled to realty while the
personalty devolved on the next-of-kin.
The property legislation of 1925 has, however, robbed the doctrine of its importance in relation
to intestacies. For example, sections 45 and 46 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925 abolished descent of realty to the heir, instead, a new form of succession common to both real and
80
personal property was introduced. Similarly, section 33 of the Act provides that, on intestacy,
the personal representatives of the deceased hold on statutory trust from sale so that persons entitled under the Act to the deceased intestate property, will primarily, be entitled to it as personalty. There is a similar provision in Section 37 of the Administration of Estates Law (Western
Nigeria), 1959.
Nevertheless, the doctrine has not become totally impotent; there are a number of circumstances
in which the question of conversion can still arise and a fair and just settlement of such question
can be achieved by reference to the equitable doctrine of conversion. For example, the question
of conversion will still arise where a testator disposes of his realty and his personalty respectively to different persons. In that connection, it is necessary if the desired result as between the devisees and the legatees is to be achieved and if the intention, of the testator is to be fully implemented, to determine that which is realty and that which is personalty under the testator's will.
For it may be that the testator, in his life time, was under an obligation either to lay money for
the purchase of land or to sell land and this obligation was not carried out before his death. Here
the doctrine of conversation becomes relevant in the determination of the nature of the testator's
rights as regards that obligation and a fortiori, the rights of those interested in the realty and personalty under the testator's will. Whenever the doctrine applies, it applies for all purposes.
In Sweetapple v. Bindon (1705) 2 Vern. 536, 23 E.R. 947, T. bequeathed 300 to be laid out in
the purchase of land and settled to the use of her daughter and her children and that if her daughter should die without issue, the property should go over. The daughter died without issue and
no purchase of the land had been made with the 300. The husband of the daughter claimed to
be tenant by courtesy of the fund of 300; this was a kind of tenancy by which a widower was
entitled to his deceased's wife' realty. The claim was upheld, though the purchase of land had not
been made; by the doctrine of conversion, the money was regarded as realty.
As will be seen below, the doctrine can only operate where someone is under an obligation to
have carried out certain act and there is someone who is in a position to compel the performance
of such obligation.
3.2
1.
Types of Circumstances in which the doctrine is operative

Where there is a binding and specifically enforceable contract for the sale or purchase of land
In this case, the doctrine of conversion becomes effective at the date and time of the contract
expressing the intention. The land, the subject-matter of the contract of sale is considered and
treated as personalty and the purchase-money is considered and treated as land. Thus, where
there is contract by A to sell land to B at a certain price, B becomes the owner in equity of the
land, subject, however, to B's obligation to perform his part of the contract by paying the purchase-money; but subject to that, the land is the land of B, the purchaser. As regards the position
of A, the vendor, he truly has the legal estate in the land, but for many purposes, from the moment the contract is entered into he holds it as a trustee for B, the purchaser. Although A has
certain rights in the land remaining all those rights as conditioned and limited by the circumstances that they are all referable to his rights to recover and receive the purchase-money. His interest in the land when he has entered into a contract for sale is not an interest in land; but an interest in personal estate, in a sum of money due under the contract. See Vaisey, J., in Hillington
Estates Co. v. Stonefield Estates Co. Ltd. (1952) Ch. 627 at 631-632.
81
The extent of the operation of the doctrine-had been stated by Lord Eldon in the early case of Seton v. Slade (1802) 7 Ves. Jr. 265, 32 E.R. 108 at 273, when he said: 'The effect of a contract for
purchase is very different at Law and in Equity. At Law, the estate remains the estate of the vendor; and the money that of the vendee. It is not so here (in equity). The estate from the sealing of
the contract is the real property of vendee. It descends to his heirs. It is devisable by his will; and
the question, whose it is, is not to be discussed merely between the vendor and vendee; but may
be to be discussed between the representatives of the vendee.' Thus, if a vendor dies before completion of the contract, the question would be whether at the time of his death he was under such
an agreement that could have been specifically enforced against him. If the answer is in the affirmative, the land which the vendor had agreed to sell will be treated as personalty and would
devolve to the person or persons entitled to personality under the vendor's will. See Curre v.
Bowyer (1818) 5 Beav. 6; 49 E.R. 478.
Conversely, on the death of the purchaser before completion, the land will devolve on his devisee
who is however bound to pay the purchase-money. But where a testator specifically devises land
which is subject to an uncompleted contract of sale owing to his death, but refers to the proceeds,
the devisee is entitled to such proceeds. This was the position in Re Carlow (1928) Ch. 710 at 714,
where the contract preceded the will, the court held that the will having been made after the date
of the contract for sale and with full knowledge of that contract on the part of the testator, indicated an intention as shown by the testator's reference to proceeds of sale, to pass whatever estate
the testator had in the property to the specific devisees. But where the will precedes the contract,
the specific devise will be adeemed by the contract, and the proceeds of sale will go to the person
who is entitled to personalty under the testator's will. See Farrar v. Winterton (1842) 5 Beav. 1,49
E.R. 476.
It is a condition precedent to the application of the doctrine that there must be, in every case, a
contract binding on the vendor and the purchaser, and capable of being specifically enforced as
between the vendor and the purchaser. See Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) Ch.n. 499; and National
Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Compagnie Frassinet (1948) 19 N.L.R. 4 at 6. As regards contract affecting real estate, it is a requirement that the vendor must be in a position to make a title according
to the contract; unless he has done this or the purchaser has accepted the title however bad the
title may be, the contract will not be valid and, therefore, not specifically enforceable. But where
the contract is valid and binding, it has the effect of converting the real estate in equity, making
the land a part of the real estate of the purchaser. Indeed, all the cases on the doctrine of constructive conversion are founded on the principle that a valid and specifically enforceable contract actually changes the ownership of the estate in equity. See Lysaght v. Edwards (supra).
Thus, in Re Thomas (1886) 34 Ch.n. 166; where title was not made out at the time the rights and obligations of the parties ought to have been fixed under the contract and as laid down by Jessell, M.R. in Lysaght v.
Edwards (supra), Kay, J. held that since specific performance was not possible, there could be no
conversion. See further, Buckmaster v. Harrop (1802) 7 Yes. 341, 32 E.R. 139. Similarly, conversion does not take place where the vendor-purchaser relationship is absent; and such relationship
does not exist where the contract of sale is subject to a condition precedent; conversion will only
take place if and when the condition has been performed. See Renelagh v. Melton (1864) 2 Dr.
SM. 278; 62 E.R. 627.
2. Where there is an Option to Purchase
The Rule in Lawes v. Bennett (1785) 1 Cox. Eq. Cas. 167; 29 E.R. 1111. The general rule is that if an
owner of a real estate contracts to sell it and dies before the contract is executed, the estate is converted into personalty; and that when a party under an agreement is given unilateral power of mak82
ing an election at a future date, as to whether or not the contract should be carried out, and that party
has elected in favour of the contract there is conversion which is related back to the time the power
was granted; although the contract which gives rise to the option is never in fact specifically enforceable, there is conversion from the moment the power to elect is exercised and, therefore, becomes
a binding contract in the life time of either party.
But a different situation arises where an option is granted and the option is not exerciseable until after the grantor's death; in that case there ought to be no conversion since there cannot be a specifically enforceable contract in existence as from the date and time of the grantor's death. This is the
position in most, if not in all, of the American jurisdictions. See the following cases: RocklandRockport Lime Co. v. Leary 203 N.Y. 469 (1911), Inghram v. Chandler; 161 N.W. 434 (1917),
Smith v. Loewenstein 34 N.E. 159 (1893).
But the rule in Lawes v. Bennett (supra) is to the contrary. In that case, W, in 1758 leased a farm to
D for 7 years. The leasehold agreement contained an option to D to purchase the freehold for 3,000,
if D should give notice in writing before the 29th September 1765, of his intention to purchase the
freehold, W would sell at the stated price. W, the lessor died in 1763, having devised all his realty to
B and all his personalty to B and M equally. D subsequently exercised the option and M now
claimed from B, half of the purchase price. The success or otherwise of M's claim depends on the
nature and character of the purchase price. If the purchase price were regarded as personalty, M
would succeed, otherwise, the entire purchase price would go to B who was entitled to realty under
W's will. Whether the purchase price was realty or personalty would have to be determined by the
application or non-application of the equitable doctrine of conversion.
It was contended on M's behalf that at the time of W's death, the freehold land, the subject-matter of
the option must be considered as personalty since the exercise of the option related back to the date
of the original agreement granting the option and that from that date conversion would operate. This
contention was upheld by Sir Lloyd Kenyon M.R., thus the rule in Lawes v. Bennett was evolved.
That where there is a contract giving an option to purchase real estate, and the option is not exercised
till after the death of the person who created the option, nevertheless, the purchase price, if and when
the option is exercised, goes as part of the grantor's personal estate and not as part of his real estate.
That the exercise of an option to purchase given in a lease has a retroactive effect, in that it relates
back to the time the option was granted and, therefore, conversion operates, as between the persons
interested in the realty and personalty respectively of the lessor, as from the date the option was
granted.
Scope of the rule: The rule applies, as between the real and personal representatives of the person
who granted the option, even where the terms of the option stipulate that the option is not exercisesable until after the death of the grantor. In Re Isaacs (1894) 3 Ch.D. 506, there was a lease which contained an option to purchase in favour of the lessee. The option was exercisable within 6 months of
the lessor's death. The lessor died intestate and the lessee exercised the option; Chitty, J., held that
the purchase money devolved not on the person entitled to realty but to the person entitled to personalty under the deceased's intestacy.
Whenever the rule applies, conversion takes place at the time the option is exercised and not that of
the creation of the option, thus, it is the time the option is exercised that must be looked at for the
purpose of ascertaining the rights of the parties. See Re Adams & Kensington Vestry (1884) 27
Ch.D. 394 C.A. The right of the grantor and that of grantee in the subject-matter of the option are
contingent upon the exercise of the option, therefore, their respective rights and obligations can only
become fixed when the option is exercised. In Re Marlay (1915) 2 Ch.D. 264 at 275, it was held that
83
where an agreement confers an option to purchase, the exercise of the option converts the agreement
into an agreement for sale and that the land itself is treated as converted from the date of the original
agreement, though the title to the intermediate rents and profits not changed.
This is consistent with the earlier decision of Lord Eldon in Townley v. Bedwell (1808) 14 Vts. 591;
33 E.R. 648, that where there is an option to a tenant to purchase the reversion, the rents and profits
accruing within the interval, between the date of the lessor's death and the time the option is exercised, would go to the person entitled to realty under the lessor's testacy or intestacy and such persons would not be required to account for these. Suppose, for example, in 1968, D made a will devising his 'Agege Estate' to X and bequeathing all his personalty to Y; and in 1970, D granted a
lease of 'Agege Estate' to Z for 8 years with an option to purchase the reversion for N5,000 before
the expiration of the lease; D died in 1971, and in 1973 Z exercised the option.
Under the rule in Lawes v. Bennett, conversion takes place at the date Z exercised the option and the
purchase money would be paid to Y who is entitled to personalty under D's will; however, since it is
the exercise of the option that converts the agreement that created the option into an enforceable
contract of sale, a fortiori, conversion of the realty to personalty, the rents from 'Agege Estate' between the date of D's death and the time the option was exercised would be paid to X who is entitled
to realty under D's will. See Collingwood v. Raw (1857) 26 L.J. Ch, 649. It is the exercise of the option that adeems the devise of 'Agege Estate.'
The giving of notice to exercise an option is in itself sufficient to make conversion operative once
and for all and, the mere fact that the exercise of an option is not followed by completion of the purchase would not prevent conversion, (which had notionally taken place, by the exercise of the option) from continuing to subsist. See Re Blake (1917) 1 Ch. 18.
3. Where there is a Binding Trust to Sell or Purchase Land
Whenever there is a direction, contained in a will or settlement, that trustees shall sell or purchase land, there is a trust for conversion which becomes operative from the moment the instrument creating the trust becomes effective. In the case of conversion directed by will, conversion takes place from the time of the testator's death. Thus, in Beauclerk v. Mead (1741) 2 Atk.
168 at 170; 26 E.R. 505, the Lord Chancellor stated that while it is a correct rule that a direction
under a will that money be invested in the purchase of land must be complete before conversion
takes place; since a will is ambulatory in the testator's life time, conversion cannot take place
until his death. In the case of conversion directed by deed; a deed differs from a will in the material respect that a will speaks from the death of the testator while a deed speaks from the date
of its delivery or execution. See Wigram, V.C. in Griffith v. Ricketts (1849) 7 Hare 299. 311; 68
E.R 122.
There can only be a trust for conversion where the direction to convert is imperative and definitive. As Parker, J. observed in Re Walker (1908) 2 Ch. 705 at 712, it is possible for the legislature by a simple enactment, to make personalty devolve and pass to a series of persons successively for the same interests as if it had been realty; but the only manner in which an individual
can achieve similar objective is by the creation of an imperative trust for its conversion into realty. Where the words in the settlement are sufficient to create an imperative and definitive trust to
sell or purchase, there will be conversion; a counsel's submission to this effect was upheld by
Pollock, M.R in Re Twopenys Settlement (1924) 1 Ch. 522 at 529. The counsel had relied on a doctrine established by authorities that 'where the quality of real estate is imperatively and definitively fixed upon personalty or
vice versa, equity will treat the personalty or realty as the case may be as having acquired
84
the quality indicated even though it is not found to have been actually turned into realty or
personalty; this being that equity treat is what ought to have been done as done and will
not allow the rights of the beneficiaries to be altered by a failure on the part of trustees to
carry out their trusts.'
A mere declaration that personalty shall devolve or pass to persons successively as realty is in
itself inoperative since the whole doctrine of conversion turns on the maxim that equity considers
to have been done what ought to have been done pursuant to the trust. See Re Walker (supra).
Considering the principle upon which the doctrine of conversion is founded, it is obvious that
there must be a paramount obligation contained in the trust instrument, and binding the trustees
to invest in the purchase of land; but if such investment is optional only so that the trustees may
completely perform their duty by investing in some form of personal security, there would be no
conversion and the rights of the parties would depend on the actual nature or state of the property
at the material time. See Warrington, L.J. in Re Twopenys Settlement (1924) 1 Ch. 522 at 533.
Thus, nothing short of an absolute and effective trust for sale or purchase can in equity create a
conversion of realty into personalty or vice versa. See Stirling, J. in Goodier v. Edmunds (1893)
3 Ch. 455, 462.
In the earlier case of Curling v. May (1734) 3 Atk. 255n, T by his will gave 500 to his trustees
with a direction that the money be laid out for the purchase of land or put the same out on good
securities for the separate use of his daughter D. D survived T but the money was not invested in
any purchase until after D's death. The question was, as between D's administrator and her heir,
who was entitled to the purchase. If the trust under which D was a beneficiary was imperative,
then there would be conversion as from the moment of T's death, and the purchase would devolve on the person entitled to realty under T's intestacy otherwise it would devolve as personalty. It was argued that when it is doubtful whether a bequest ought to be considered as money or
land the court of chancery will not interfere because of the element of doubt involved. This submission was upheld by Lord Talbot who stated that there could be no conversion on the ground
that the direction in the trust instrument was discretionary; there was no sufficient indication in
the will as to what was the testators principal intention since the direction was one of investing
in land or securities.
Where settlor or testator directs trustees to sell or purchase land and such direction is to take
place with the consent or at the request of some named persons, such qualification is not sufficient to prevent the direction from being imperative. See Re Ffennells Settlement (1918) 1
Ch.91. In Attorney-General v. Dodd (1894) 2 Q.B. 150 at 154, where the direction to sell was
subject to the qualification that the sale should take place at the request of certain specified persons, Matthew, J., rejected the contention that the qualification necessarily prevented the direction from being imperative; such clauses; he stated, are only intended to give directions as to the
time and circumstances under which the sale is to take place and do not necessarily indicate that
the sale must not take place ultimately.
Sometimes, however, it may be a question of construction whether the qualification is such that it
imports an element of discretion enabling the specified person to prevent conversion, in which
case there will be no conversion. For example, where the direction to sell is to be 'with the consent of A and not without' there is no conversion for, here the discretion is not imperative. But as
Morton, L.J. put it in Duke of Marlborough v. Attorney-General (1945) Ch. 145 at 154, it is well settled that if real property is vested in trustees upon trust for sale with the consent of a named person, the consent is treated as intended to regulate the exercise of the trust for sale but not to prevent the trust for sale from being an immediate trust for sale, whether subject to consent or not,
85
the trust operates at once to effect a conversion. This is consistent with the earlier opinion of
Grant, M.R in Thornton v. Hawley (1804) 10 Ves. 129 at 137; 32 E.R 793, where he said that
'nothing is more common than to direct money to be laid out upon request. The object of that is
only to ensure that the act shall be done when the request is made-not prevent it until request.'
4. Under a Statutory Trust for Sale - Applicable only in the Former West and Mid-West
States Under the Property & Conveyancing Law, 1959 and the Administration of Estates
Law, 1959
The following provisions statutorily create trusts for sale a fortiori, the consequences are automatic conversion. Section 61(2) of the law provides that where, after the commencement of the law, land is expressed to be conveyed to any persons in undivided shares and those persons are of full age, the conveyance shall (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the law) operate as if the land had been expressed to be conveyed to the grantees ... as joint tenants upon the statutory trusts hereinafter mentioned
and so as to give effect to the rights of the persons who would have been entitled to the shares had conveyance operated to create those shares.
Section 61(3) provides that a devise, bequest or testamentary appointment, coming into operation after
the commencement of the law, of land to two or more persons in undivided shares shall operate as a devise, bequest or appointment of the land to the personal representatives of the testator, and (but without
prejudice to the rights and powers of the personal representatives for the purposes of administration)
upon the statutory trusts hereinafter mentioned.
Section 64(1) provides that any disposition purporting to make a settlement of an undivided share in land
shall only operate as a settlement of a corresponding share of the net proceeds of sale and of the rents
and profits until sale of the entirety of the land. Section 62, which defines 'statutory trusts' provides that,
for the purposes of the law, land held upon the 'statutory trusts', shall be held upon trusts for sale. Section 63(1) provides that where a legal estate is beneficially limited to or held in trust for any persons as
joint tenants, the same shall be held on trust for sale, in like manner as if the persons beneficially entitled
were tenants in common, but not so as to sever their joint tenancy in equity.
Section 37(1) of the Administration of Estates Law, 1959 also provides that on the death of a person intestate as to any real or personal estate, such estate shall be held by his personal representatives:
(a) as to the real estate upon trust to sell the same; and
(b) as to the personal estate upon trust to call in, sell, and convert into money such part thereof as may
not consist of money.
The general effect of the foregoing provisions which create automatic trust for sale and conversion in circumstances falling within any of the provisions is best illustrated by English decisions on similar provisions in the English Law of Property Act, 1925. Generally, where there is statutory imposition of a trust
for sale, the effect is, as far as beneficiaries are concerned, to convert land into money.
Thus, in Re Kempthrime (1930) 1 Ch. 268 at 290, it was held that the statutory imposition of a trust
for sale operated to convert an undivided share of real estate into a corresponding share of the
proceeds of sale of the entirety; and that as from the passing of the Law of Property Act, 1925,
the interest of the owner of an undivided share in real estate became personal estate and passed
as such. In that case, a testator was, in his life time, entitled to an undivided share in freehold
property. By his will made before 1925, he gave all his freehold property to A and all his personal estate to B. The testator died in 1928, and the question was, as between A and B, who was entitled to the undivided share under the testator's will. It was held that as from the 1st January
86
1926, the Act of 1925 operated to convert the undivided share into personalty which accordingly
passed to B. The decision would not have been different if the will had been made after the
commencement of the Act. (See further Re Price (1928) Ch. 579).
The full effect of the Act where it operates seems to be that a devise of undivided share in realty
will be adeemed since the devise would be of land which the imposition of trust for sale notionally converts into personalty and as such there will be nothing upon which the devise will operate.
Thus, in Re Newman (1930) 2 Ch. 409 at 413, a devise of an undivided share in land was held
adeemed by the imposition of statutory trust for sale and conversion because there was nothing
left for the devise to operate on; the undivided freehold moiety having been impressed with statutory trust for sale, had become a moiety of the proceeds of sale.
However, the court would give effect to the substance of the devise of an undivided share in land
and preclude ademption where the testator sufficiently indicated a contrary intention. For example, ademption would be precluded where the testator had used such words as to demonstrate his
intention to benefit the devisee in whatever form his interest in the property might take. The use,
by a testator, of the words 'all my share of interest' in devising his interest in an undivided land,
has been held sufficient' to preclude ademption. See Re Mellish (1929) 2 K.B. 82. Similarly, a
contrary intention, precluding ademption, would be shown if the testator either confirmed (Re
Warren (1932) 1 Ch. 42) or merely republished (Re Harvey (1947) Ch. 285) his will by codicil.
In Re Harvey (supra) at 293-295, a testator, by his will made in 1912, devised his undivided shares
to his trustees for his daughter for life. The Law of Property Act, 1925 converted the shares into
personal property. In 1927, the testator made a codicil which merely recorded the destruction of
the earlier codicils but without any confirmation or reference to the contents of any preceding
testamentary document. It was argued, among other things, that the quality and whole nature of
the property had fundamentally changed by the imposition of the statutory trust for sale so that
that which the testator purported to dispose of, had previously to the death of the testator been
taken away from him and that there was nothing left upon which the disposition would operate.
But Vaisey J. held that since the fifth codicil, that is, that of 1927, referred expressly to the will,
the codicil had sufficiently republished the testator's will constructively so as to preclude ademption of the gift in question and that absence of express confirmation of the will was immaterial.
It would appear that the court has taken this flexible approach so as to ensure that statutory imposition of trust for sale which is designed principally to make conveyancing easy, does not defeat
testators' intentions or, destroy or alter substantive rights in the process. See Re Warren (supra). It
should, however, be noted that the foregoing cases were decided in the context of the English
Law of Property Act, 1925, but the relevant provisions of the Act, Section 34-36, have been substantially re-enacied by the Property and Conveyancing Law (Western Nigeria), 1959, Sections
61-63 respectively.
5. Where Land is Partnership Property
Where land is partnership property, such land has always been treated in equity as personality. As
Bowen, L.J. explained in Attorney-General v. Hubbuck (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 275 at 289, the doctrine of
conversion necessarily affects partnerships- 'partnership property is that which is held by the partners as such for the purposes of the partnership; it is held for the purpose of carrying on the adventure of the partnership, and may be wanted for that purpose, and moreover, at the time of winding
up of the partnership the debts of the partnership will have to be paid, the question of their amount
settled between the partners and then the unexhausted assets divided between them'.
87
To achieve the various purposes of a partnership and upon dissolution to ensure equitable division
of partnership property among the partners, partnership property must be treated in the end as subject to a trust for sale and conversion. This is the basis of the rule which has now been made statutory: Section 22 of the Partnership Act 1890, a statute of general application and section 23 of the
Partnership Law Cap. 86, Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria, 1959, provides that where land
or any interest therein has become partnership property, in the absence of any contrary expression
or a contrary intention, it is to be treated as personalty, not only as between the partners (including
the representatives of a deceased partner) but also as between the beneficiaries who are entitled in
the real and personal estate of a deceased partner.
6. Where Court Directs a Sale
Where a court of competent jurisdiction directs a sale of realty, conversion becomes operative
from the date of the order. In Fauntleroy v. Beebe (1911) 2 Ch. 257 at 263, an absolute order for
sale made by a court of competent jurisdiction in an administration action was held to operate as
a conversion from the date of the order and, the interest of the joint-owners were no longer in
the land but in the proceeds to be derived from the sale. Where conversion is rightfully directed,
it is for all purposes and all the consequences of conversion must follow, thus there is no equity
in favour of any beneficiary, either under a will, settlement or intestacy to take the property, the
subject-matter of conversion, in any other form than in its converted form.
The mere fact that the order was made for a purpose which does not exhaust the proceeds of sale does
not prevent conversion. In Burgees v. Booth (1908) 2 Ch. 648 at 651, the question was whether the
surplus of proceeds of sale of an infant's real estate which had been directed by an order of the court to
be sold for payment of costs, descended on the infant's heir-at-law or went as personalty to his next-ofkin. Cozens-Hardy, M.R. held that 'there are no trusts for reconversion into real estate, and there is no
equity between heir-at-law and next-of-kin, and there is no ground for holding that this is anything else
than what it professes to be and is in fact, namely cash.'
The court may, however, order that there should be no conversion, which may mean that the property
would retain its original nature and character either for all purposes or for purposes of devolution only.
Such order is, perhaps, usually made where the property ordered to be sold or to be purchased is owned
by someone suffering under certain incapacity. In Attorney-General v. Marquis of Ailesbury (1887) 12
App. Cas. 672 at 687-688, Lord Fitzgerald said that 'it seems that for a great length of time a theory has
existed in equity, which has been carried into effect in practice, that an investment of the money of a lunatic in the purchase of land under such conditions as are now before us does not change its character or
its destination... it remains 'money' for all intents and purposes'.
As Lord Macnaghten pointed out in this case, in the ordinary course of managing a lunatic's estate, the
court pays no regard to the interests or expectations of those who may succeed him, but that it is equally
well settled that in matters outside the ordinary course of management, such as an order for sale and conversion of a lunatic's property, the court has a duty so far as may be possible not to alter the character of
the lunatic's property or to interfere with any rights of succession. See also Re Searle (1912) 2 Ch.
365.
Whenever it becomes necessary for the court to order the nature and consequent devolution of the estate
of a lunatic, the paramount consideration, the controlling factor, is always what in the circumstance, is in
the best interest of the lunatic. See Re Silva (1929) 2 Ch. 198. The court may also direct that there
should be no conversion where conversion has been effected by parties who have no lawful authority to
effect such conversion; it is immaterial that the result of conversion may have been beneficial. See Taylor
v. Taylor (1853) 10 Hare 475; 68 E.R. 1014.
88

List the circumstances in which the doctrine is of conversion operates
3.3
Failure of Conversion
Failure of conversion may be either total or partial.

Total failure
Whether a conversion is directed by a Deed or by a Will, if the objects for which the conversion has been
directed totally fail before the will or the deed becomes operative there is no conversion. A number of reasons may be responsible for total failure of conversion; for example where all the beneficiaries under a trust for sale die before the trust instrument comes into operation for example,
death of legatees or devisees in the life time of the testator in the case of conversion directed by
will, or death of all the beneficiaries before a deed, directing conversion in their favour, becomes
inoperative. Similarly there will be total failure of conversion where the beneficiaries failed to obtain vested interest because the instrument directing conversion offends the role against perpetuity
or that the disposition is otherwise illegal. See Goodier v. Edmunds (1893) 3 Ch.D. 455; and Re
Appleby (1903) 1 Ch. 565.
Effect
Whatever reason that brings about a total failure of objects for which conversion was directed and
whether the direction was by Will or by Deed, the effect is the same and that is there is no conversion, the reason being that the equitable doctrine of conversion can only operate where there is a
human being who is able to insist that the nature and character of the subject matter for conversion
shall be altered. See Smith v. Claxton (1820) 4 Madd. 484; 56 E.R 784. As Cozens-Hardy, M.R.
stated in Re Lord Grimthrope (1908) 2 Ch. 675 at 679, 'when once you get to this fact, that there was no
human being who, from the first moment when the trust came into operation ... could have enforced the trust
for sale' there is no conversion.
In that case, the direction was to sell at a future date, but the purposes having totally failed before that date,
there was no conversion. In the case of total failure of conversion directed by deed, the property results back
to the settlor if he is alive; if not it would pass under his will or intestacy as the case may be. See Re Lord
Grimthrope (supra). But where the direction is by will, the property would pass into the testator's residue:
and would devolve on the residuary devisee or legatee depending on the nature of the property. For example
a testator devised 'Agege Estate' upon trust to sell and the proceeds of sale to be divided between A and B. A
and B died in the lifetime of T and T did not change his will. On the death of T the gift of 'Agege Estate'
would lapse. Suppose P is the testator's residuary legatee and R is the testator's residuary devisee; 'Agege Estate' being realty, would devolve on R because the objects for which conversion was directed having totally
failed, there is no conversion.
However, where there is no residuary bequest or devise under the testator's will, the property would devolve
on intestacy. See Smith v. Claxton (1820) (supra) at 494; and Re Walpole (1933) Ch. 431, 437. Thus,
in Re Hopkinson (1922) 1 Ch.D. 65, 69, the ultimate gift of property, the subject-matter of conversion, having totally failed, Sargant J., held that an intestacy resulted as to the property.
Partial Failure
There is partial failure of conversion where, for example, if A devises 'Ikeja Estate', upon trust to
89
sell and the proceeds to be divided between X and Y, and X pre-deceased A; there is a lapse of the
gift to X while that of Y is good. However it is necessary to distinguish between conversion directed by deed and that directed by will since the consequences of partial failure of objects of conversion differ from one to the other. The basis for this distinction as explained by Wigram V.C. in
Griffith v. Ricketts (1849) 7 Hare 299, 311, is that a will speaks from the death of the testator while
a deed takes effect from the date of its execution.
Furthermore, a deed converts the property in the lifetime of the author or settlor, whereas, in the
case of a will, the conversion does not take place until the death of the testator. More importantly
however, is the marked distinction between the effect of partial failure of conversion directed by a
deed and will respectively; the basis of this distinction is that where a conversion is directed by
deed, the effect is an out and out conversion, a conversion for all purposes, whereas a conversion
directed by will is a conversion for the purposes of the will only. See Ackroyd v. Smithson (1780) 1
Bro. C.C. 503; 28 E.R 1262. The validity of this statement is to be seen in the discussion following.
Deeds: Effect of Partial Failure
Where there is a partial failure of the purposes of a conversion directed by deed, the property not required for the objects stated in the deed reverts to the settlor; if he is dead, it reverts
to those claiming under him-in both cases, the property reverts in its converted form. Thus,
where the direction is to turn land into money, the lapsed part of the land reverts to the settlor or those claiming under him as personalty. Similarly, money directed to be laid out in
land reverts, on a partial failure of the direction, to the settlor or those claiming under him,
as land.
For example, if A conveyed 'Home Estate' to trustee upon trust to sell and divide the purchase-price between his two friends C and D; but D died before the conveyance was executed, here the purposes for which conversion was directed fail in part, the lapsed share of
D in 'Home Estate' reverts to A, the settlor as personalty. Suppose the trust had been settled
upon A for life and on his death upon trust to sell and divide the purchase price between C
and D contingently on surviving A. A by his will gives his residuary personalty to P and his
residuary realty to R. D pre-deceased A but C survived him, hence, there is partial failure of
objects of conversion, in which case conversion is operative, but the lapsed share of D is
treated as personalty and goes to P, who is entitled to residuary personalty under A's will.
Will: Effect of Partial Failure
(a) Land into Money: Where land is the subject matter of a conversion directed by will,
and there is a partial failure of the purposes for which conversion has been directed, the trust
for conversion has been directed, the trust for conversion becomes operative, and though, so
far as the purposes have failed, land directed to be sold and converted into money would go
to the person entitled to realty under his intestacy, but that person would take it as personalty.
This would seem to be the decision reached in the celebrated case of Ackroyd v. Smithson
(supra) at 506, where it was stated that 'it is admitted, and cannot be denied that where a testator directs real estate to be sold for special purposes, if any of those purposes became incapable of taking effect, the heir-at-Iaw shall take; because there is an end of the disposition,
when there is an end of the purposes for which it was made.' In Re Richerson (1892) 1 Ch.D.
379 at 381, Chitty J. held that where real estate is devised upon trust for conversion into per90
sonalty and the objects for conversion partially fail, the lapsed share of the proceeds of land
sold or of the land (if any) unsold results to the heir (or the person entitled to realty under the
testator's residuary gift if none or intestacy) but he takes it as personalty.
Thus, where there is a partial undisposed interest of real estate directed to be sold, that interest results to the residuary devisee (or person entitled to realty) of the testator and it becomes
personal estate in his hands. But where the testator's residuary devisee, (or the person entitled
to realty if there is no residuary devisee) survived the testator, but died before he received the
ineffectually disposed of share in the purchase price, though the share had devolved on him
as land, he would receive it as personalty and it would be treated as part of his personalty for
purposes of devolution.
It is immaterial whether or not the trustees of the will for conversion had sold the realty in
his life time. Thus, in Re Walpole (1933) Ch. 431, Farwell J. stated that if there is a partial intestacy and the trust for conversion is a valid trust, this undoubtedly affects the position of
the heir (the person entitled to realty) to the extent that although it does not defeat his right
as the heir-at-law to whatever is real estate undisposed of, for the purpose of the devolution
of his estate, it is treated as personalty and passes as such, the reason being that, under the
rule in Ackroyd v. Smithson (supra), the lapsed share of the object that fails (that is, land directed to be converted into money) passes to the testator's residuary devisee (if none, the
person entitled to realty) who, of course, must have survived the testator; however, since the
failure of objects is partial only, and therefore, to satisfy the part that has not failed, the trustees are under an enforceable duty to sell; in this regard, the conversion is effective and although the lapsed share, devolves as land on the residuary devisee who takes it in its converted form. If he dies before receipt of the proceeds of sale, the proceeds of sale would go
to his residuary legatee since his residuary devisee has no equity to reconversion. See Re
Walpole (supra) at 437.
The position is the same where the purpose of a trust for sale of land and conversion cannot exhaust the proceeds of sale. In Dixon v. Dawson (1825) 2 Sim & S. 327; 57 E.R. 371, by her will,
the testatrix directed her trustees to sell land to satisfy certain specified charges; the property having been sold and the charges met, there was a surplus. It was held that the surplus belonged to
the heir-at-law but that since the property was sold in the lifetime of the heir-at-law, he would
take it in its converted form and it would devolve as such on his personal representative.
(b) Money into Land: Where money is laid out for the purchase of land and there is a partial
failure, the same rule and reasoning apply as in Ackroyd v. Smithson (supra). Thus in Cogan v. Stephens
(1835) 5 L.J. Ch. 17 at 20, Lord Langdale MR. stated that if a testator devises land for purposes which are
in part illegal, or which partially fail or which require part only of the land devised, the person entitled to
realty in that circumstance takes the part which fails; or which is not required for the purposes of the will;
and that conversely in the case of money laid out for the purchase of land, the Person entitled to personalty
in the circumstances would take.
Where, for example, before 1959 in the Western and Mid-Western States, and Presently in some other
states in the Federation where the Pre-1900 English law applies, T, by his will, gave N500 to trustees to
purchase land for the benefit of X and Y in equal share, and Y died before the testator, there is partial failure of the purposes for which conversion was directed; consequently there is a lapse of X's share which
would pass to T's next-of-kin (the person entitled to T's personalty on intestacy) and not to the heir at law.
But if testator had made residuary gifts, the lapsed share passed to the residuary legatee; though the lapsed
share results in its unconverted form, the residuary legatee or the next-of-kin takes it as real estate.
91
In Curteis v. Wormald (1878) 10 Ch.D. 172, Jessel M.R. stated that if Personal estate is bequeathed upon
trusts for conversion into land to be held on trusts the purpose of which partially fail, the lapsed part of
land purchased before or after the failure goes to the next-of-kin as real estate. If, then the question of subsequent devolution arises, the same Principle and reasoning apply as in Re Richerson (supra) at 381. In that
case, Chitty J. observed that whatever the trusts of the will are, whether it is an absolute conversion or not,
'all you have to do to ascertain the rights of the real and personal representatives of the heir is merely to
look to the actual state in which the Property is, and there is an end to the question. Although the lapsed
share of the trust of money for the purchase of land devolves, in unconverted form, on the person (next-ofkin) entitled to personalty under the testator's will, he takes it as land, which is the actual state the Property
is, and it would devolve as such that is, in its converted form, under the will or intestacy of the next-of-kin.
3.4
Reconversion
Whenever the equitable doctrine of conversion operates, though the subject-matter for conversion has not
in fact been converted, in the eye of equity there is notional conversion of that subject-matter, because equity looks on that as done which ought to be done. Again in certain circumstances, the notional or fictitious
and artificial character, which equity has imposed on the subject-matter, is annulled yielding place to the
actual state of the property; the state in which it was, before being impressed by the equitable stamp of
conversion. At this state there is reconversion.
3.4.1 Definition of reconversion

Reconversion has been defined as that imaginary process by which a prior notional conversion is reversed
or discharged, and the notionally converted property restored in contemplation of equity to its
original actual quality. (See Snell's Principles of Equity (27th Ed.) 1960 p.480). There are two
ways by which reconversion may be effected. These are: by act of the Parties or by operation of
law. The former depends on the manifestation of intention by the party or parties entitled to reconvert; while the latter reconversion is automatic.
3.4.2 Reconversion by act of parties

It frequently happens that the beneficial ownership of subject-matter for conversion is vested in
one person who is sui juris, not being under any disability and absolutely entitled in that case, he
is entitled to take the property in its actual state. Thus, if money is laid out for the purchase of
land, the party who would have the sole and absolute interest in the land when bought, may elect
to have the money paid to him and that the money, the subject-matter for conversion, shall not be
used for the purchase of land; in that case, a court of equity will not order a contrary decree
which might be annulled or rendered vain by the act of the absolute owner. See Benson v. Benson
(1710) 1 P. Wms. 130 at 131; 24 E.R. 324. For if the purchase were to be enforced, he might at
the same moment sell the land and convert it into money, thereby stultifying the court order, and
'equity like nature does nothing in vain.' See Seeley v. Jago (1717) l.p. Wms. 389; 24 E.R. 438;
and Saunders v. Vautier (1841) 10 L.J. Ch. 354.
In Harcourt.v. Seymour (1851) 2 Sim (NS) 12 at 46; 61 E.R.244, Lord Cranworth V.C. observed
that where by a settlement land has been directed to be converted into money, or money to be
converted into land, a character is thereby imposed upon it until somebody entitled to take it in
either form chooses to elect that, instead of its being converted into money, or instead of its being
converted into land, it shall remain in the form in which it is actually found. The only question in
each particular case is whether the person entitled to reconvert has manifested acts sufficient to
enable the court to say that he has so elected.
92
Where more than one person are interested in the subject-matter of conversion, the same principle applies as in the case of an absolute beneficial owner. For example where land is held on
trust for sale for the benefit of A and B in undivided shares and they are both of full age and absolutely entitled, provided they agree they can effect a reconversion. See Re Daveron (1893) 3
Ch. 421, 425. However, the case is different where one of the several beneficiaries is not willing
to reconvert. In Holloway v. Radcliffe (1857) 23 Beav. 163 at 172; 53 E.R. 64, Lord Romilly M.R
states that where the undivided shares relate to money to be laid out in land, a co-beneficial owner who wishes to elect to reconvert his share may do so without the concurrence of the other coowners; the reason being that such course of action will not in any way be detrimental to the interest of the other co-owners who are not willing to reconvert.
Where, however, the undivided shares relate to land directed to be laid out into personalty, if
there is to be any reconversion, at all, it must be total, which means all the beneficiaries must
concur; a co-owner cannot effect a partial reconversion. As Lord Romilly observed, it would be
repugnant to the principles on which the doctrine of conversion and reconversion rest to hold that
one of the legatees of an undivided share in the proceeds of real estate directed to be converted
into personalty could without the assent of the others, elect to take his share as unconverted and
in the shape of real estate.
A more potent reason against partial reconversion in this case seems to be that it is more profitable to all the beneficiaries to have the land sold in its entirety than to have one part sold and the
other part retained which would be the effect if one co-owner is permitted to reconvert his undivided share. However, the validity of this observation may depend on the size of the land laid out
for conversion. If it is of such a size that the part sought to be reconverted would not pro tanto,
make the remaining part less marketable than the entirety, on principle a co-owner, wishing to
reconvert, ought to be allowed to do so.
Remainder man
The question has arisen as to whether a remainder man can reconvert. In Meek v. Devenish (1877) 6
Ch.n. 566, Malins V.C. held that a person contingently entitled absolutely to the proceeds of real
estate directed to be sold, may, pending the contingency, elect to take the estate as realty and
such election will become operative upon the contingency happening before his death. Prima facie a remainder man may reconvert, but his election to reconvert is only operative when his interest falls into possession and if before then, the property is in fact uncoverted. See Re Duke of
Cleveland's Estates (1893) 3 Ch.n. 244 at 248.
A person who is absolutely entitled under a settlement of land upon trust for sale may by his will
elect to take the property in its uncoverted state, which election would operate as a reconversion
of the personalty into realty; he cannot however do so if he is a remainder man whose interest is
still contingent at his death. See Re Sturt (122) 1 Ch. 416. Furthermore, the interests of prior
owners are not bound or affected in any manner whatsoever, by any election made by a remainder man.
Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind
Ordinarily, it would appear that an infant cannot elect to reconvert. Robinson v. Robinson (1854)
19 Beav. 494; 52 E.R. 442. In certain circumstances, the court may elect for him (See Burgess v.
Booth (1908) 2 Ch. 648) or sanction his election where he has already elected. The court will only exercise this power after an enquiry has been directed as to what is most beneficial to the infant in the circumstance. In the case of persons of unsound minds, the same principle applies as
in the case of infants. See Re Douglas and Powell's Contract (1902) 2 Ch. 296.
93
Evidence of Election to Reconvert

Election presupposes a clear intention to take the property 'in specie' free from a trust or direction
to convert. In order to establish an election, there must be sufficient evidence of the election;
such evidence may be by express declarations or inferred from acts or conduct of the party or
parties entitled to elect. See Re Douglas and Powell's Contract (supra) at 312. Where a party's
right to elect is subject to the right of another person to prevent reconversion, it is not enough for
the party entitled to elect to show evidence of his intention to elect; in addition, it must also be
shown that the person who can prevent reconversion has assented to an election.
In Re Douglas and Powells Contract (supra), Byrne J., could not find that there ever was a valid and
effectual election to take in 'specie' because one of the persons interested in the matter had not
been competent to give assent to an election. In the case of a direction to convert land into money, it is easier to infer intention to reconvert; circumstantial evidence such as the retention of the
land for a reasonable length of time and expending money on its improvement may be sufficient.
(Mutlow v. Bigg (1875) 1 Ch.D.385).
Thus in Re Gordon (1877) 6 Ch.D. 531 at 534, evidence of election to take land as real estate was
inferred where the person entitled to elect received the rents of the land for a long time though he
did not exercise any other act of ownership. It was the view of Jessel M.R. that the fact that the
person had received rents from the land and also the fact that after his death his agent continued
to receive rents from the land were sufficient evidence of election to retain the land in 'specie'.
However, where the direction is to layout money for the purchase of land a stronger and more
direct evidence of an intention to reconvert is required. Thus a receipt of the income from the
money for a long period of time may not be enough; there must be, in addition, a more positive
manifestation of intention to reconvert. See Re Pedder's Settlement (1854) 5 De G.M. & G. 890;
24 L.J. Ch. 313; 43 E.R. 1116.
When does reconversion arise?
3.4.3 Reconversion by Operation of Law

In certain circumstances property which has been notionally converted in equity becomes reconverted without any declaration or act of the party entitled to reconvert. This usually occurs either
where the duty to convert and the right to call for the subject-matter in 'specie' are vested in the
same person; or where both the legal interest and the equitable interest are vested in the same
person; in both cases the obligation to convert is extinguished, and the property is said to be 'at
home'.
Thus where money directed to be laid out for the purchase of land actually comes into the hands
of the person who would be entitled to dispose of the land if purchased, the money is his absolute
property and will pass under a general bequest of his personal estate. As Thurlow L.C. observed
in Pulteney v. Earl of Darlington (1783) 1 Bro. C.C. 223 at 238; 28 E.R. 1095, If AB has in his
possession 20,000 to be laid out in land for his use, he has nobody to sue; the right and the
thing centering in one person, the action is extinguished... Where a sum of money is in the hands of one
without any other use but for himself, it will be money and the heir cannot claim'. See also Wheldale v.
partridge (1803) 8 Ves. Jun 228 at 235; 32 E.R. 341.
In Chichester v. Bickerstaff (1693) 2 Vern 296; 23 E.R. 791, H convenanted under a marriage settlement to advance 1500 pounds within a specified period, to be laid out in land to be held on trusts for H
94
for life and for his wife for life, remainder to H's heirs. The wife died without issue. By his will H bequeathed his residuary personal estate to Y. The 1500 pounds was never invested in land. On the death of
H., his heir-at-law claimed the 1500 contending that the marriage settlement had, in equity, converted
the money into land. In the opinion of Lord Chancellor Somers, 'This money, though once bound by the
articles, yet when the wife died Without issue, became free again, and was under the power and disposal
of the testator, as the land would likewise have been, in case a purchase had been made pursuant to the
articles.'
In Re Cook (1948) Ch. 212, a freehold land was conveyed to H and W as joint tenants. H pre-deceased
W. By her will, W gave all her personal estate to A and B. W died possessed of the freehold land. The
question was whether there had been a reconversion of the land so as to make it real estate at the death of
W since the land was subject to a statutory trust for sale and had devolved on W absolutely at the death of
H or whether it passed under W's will as personal estate. Harman J. held that after the death of H, .the entire interest in the land both legal and equitable devolved on W and that no trust for sale could subsist thereafter; W's beneficial interest became automatically reconverted, by operation of law, from money into
land which accordingly was vested in W at her death as real estate. Therefore, the bequest of personal estate under W's will could not and did not give any interest in the land to A and B.
4.0
CONCLUSION
Whenever the equitable doctrine of conversion operates, though the subject-matter for conversion has not
in fact been converted, in the eye of equity there is notional conversion of that subject-matter, because equity looks on that as done which ought to be done. Practically, the doctrine is of little significance in
Nigeria, hardly can one find a single reported case in which the doctrine has been applied. Even,
in England where the doctrine originated, the importance of the doctrine has declined since the
property legislation of 1925.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the doctrine of conversion and reconversion. You should
now be able to: explain the importance of the doctrine of conversion and reconversion; list the
types of circumstances in which the doctrine is operative; and discuss failure of Conversion.
6.0
How important is the doctrine of conversion?
7.0
95
UNIT 5
ELECTION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
The guiding principle
3.2
Operation of the doctrine
3.3
Judicial basis of the doctrine
3.4
Essentials of the doctrine
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we considered the doctrine of conversion and reconversion. In this unit, we will consider the doctrine of election. The doctrine of election is yet another curious and artificial doctrine
developed and nurtured by the learned and unpredictable minds of the English Chancery judges.
As to the basis for its development, it was stated in the leading case of Noys v. Mordaunt (1706)
Vern 581 at 583; 23 E.R. 978, that the general principle governing election was evolved to prevent a person claiming under a will from contravening it.
Of the doctrine of election Lord Eldon observes in Ker v. Wanchope (1819) 1 Bli. 1; 4 E.R. 1 at
22, that no person can accept and reject the same instrument. 'If a testator gives his estate to A
and gives A's estate to B, Courts of Equity hold it to be against conscience that A should take the
estate bequeathed to him, and at the same time refuse to effectuate the implied condition contained in the will of the testator. The court will not permit him to take that which cannot be his
but by virtue of the disposition of the will; and at the same time to keep what by the same will is
given or intended to be given to another person. It is contrary to the established principles of equity that he should enjoy the benefit while he rejects the condition of the gift.'
The doctrine was originally confined to gifts arising under a will, but it was later extended to
gifts under deed. This could be seen in the dictum of Sir Richard Arden M.R., in Freke v. Barrington (1791) 3 Bro. C.C. 274 at 285; 29 E.R. 533; while commenting on the doctrine, he observed that he did not mean, in that case, to 'intrench on the rule that no man can take an interest
under a deed or will, without confirming the deed or will'. See further Anderson v. Abbot (1857)
23 Beav. 457; 53 E.R. 180.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3.0
Explain the doctrine of election;

Enumerate the judicial basis of the doctrine; and
List the essentials of the doctrine.
MAIN CONTENT
96
3.1
The Guiding Principle
The guiding principle is that if a donor, either by mistake or by design, gives property which is
not his to give, and gives at the same time to the real owner of it other property, such real owner
cannot claim the property given to him by the donor and at the same time retain his own property
of which the donor sought to dispose. See James V.C. in Wollaston v. King (1869) 20 L.T. 1003,
1005. This was further elaborated upon by Lord Cairns in Codrington v. Codrington (1875) L.R.
7 H.L. 854 at 861, when he said that 'It is a well settled doctrine of the courts that where a deed
or will professes to make a general disposition of property for the benefit of a person named in it,
such person cannot accept a benefit under the instrument without at the same time conforming to
all its provisions, and renouncing every right inconsistent with them.'
Thus in Taylor v. Williams (935) 12 N.L.R. 67 at 68, one of the very few cases on the doctrine to
come before the Nigerian Court, Graham Paul J., said, 'The law as to election under a will is
clear enough in its main principles. Where a testator under his will disposes or professes to dispose of property not his to dispose of, the disposition is of course of itself void and of no effect.
But if the person to whom the property wrongly disposed of in fact belongs and who has the
power to dispose of it, is a beneficiary under the will he is put to his election, that is to say he
must refuse the benefit he gets under the will or allow his property to go under the testators devise of it, or compensate the devisee thereof for the failure of the devise'.
The doctrine is based on the principle which the courts apply in the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction enabling them to secure a just distribution in substantial accordance with the general
scheme of the instrument. See Lord Haldane in Brown v. Gregson (1920) A.C. 860, 868. The
doctrine, which can be explained on the basis of the maxim that 'he who seeks equity must do
equity', in practice means that equity will not allow a person to approbate and reprobate and, that
if he approbates he shall do all in his power to confirm the instrument which he approbates. See
Chitty J. in Re Lord Chesham (1886) 31 Ch. D. 466. The essence of it all is that equity will not
allow a person to take a benefit under an instrument and at the same time assert a right which is
inconsistent with the provision of the instrument.
3.2
Operation of the Doctrine
The doctrine applies where for example, A by his will gives to B "Agege Estate" which in fact
belongs to C, and by another provision in the will, A gives his own property 'Ikeja Estate' to C. In
this case, the gift of 'Ikeja Estate' to C has conferred a benefit on him, but at the same time an obligation is imposed on him which is that he should allow his own 'Agege Estate" to pass to B as
directed by the Provisions of the will.
Both at law and in equity, a person has no right to dispose of another person's property; thus,
prima facie, in the illustration given above, C can keep his 'Agege Estate' and at the same time
claim 'Ikeja Estate' under A's will; the result will be that B takes nothing. But the court of equity
says it is inequitable for C to take a benefit under an instrument and at the same time refuse to
discharge the obligation imposed by the instrument, if he accepts the benefit he cannot reject the
burden; he who wants equity must be prepared to do equity. C cannot be compelled to transfer
his 'Agege Estate' to B as directed by A's will since A has no power to dispose of C's property,
nevertheless C would be called upon to elect, in which case C has one of two alternatives:
(i)
To elect in favour of the instrument;
(ii) To elect against the instrument.
97
If he elects in favour of the instrument, he takes the benefit conferred on him by the instrument,
but he must relinquish his own estate which was wrongfully disposed of by the instrument, and
make it available to the person to whom it was given by the instrument in conformity to the intention of the donor. It is clear that the instrument per se cannot pass a good title in the elector's
own property to the person to whom the property is purportedly given under the instrument; in
that wise, the court imposes an implied condition that if the elector-donee accepts the benefit
which the donor had power to give, he shall convey his own property over which the donor had
no power, to the individual whom it is actually but ineffectually given. See Gretton v. Howard
(1819) 1 Swanst. 433; 36 E.R. 443; Douglas v. Douglas (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. Cas. 617. 637.
If, in the alternative, he elects against the instrument, he, keeps his own property and at the same
time claims the benefit conferred on him by the instrument but he must compensate the disappointed beneficiary (that is, the person who would have been entitled to the elector's own property had the elector elected in favour of the instrument) out of the benefit conferred on him by the
instrument and to the extent of the value of the elector's own property which the elector has decided to retain. This brings out the distinction between equitable doctrine of election which is
based on compensation and conditional gift which is based on forfeiture.
Compensation not Forfeiture
Where the elector takes against the instrument there is no question of his forfeiting the benefit
conferred on him by the instrument. See Ker v. Wauchope (1819) 1 Bli 1 at 25. In other words it
does not follow that he will be precluded from taking the benefit conferred on him by the donor.
He is, however required in equity to compensate the disappointed person to the equivalence of
that benefit which the donor intended the disappointed person to take. As stated by Jessel, M.R.,
in Pickersgill v. Rodger (1877) 5 Ch.D. 163 at 173, the disappointed person may, in that case say
to the elector 'You are not allowed by a Court of Equity to take away out of the testatrix's estate
that which you would otherwise be entitled to, until you have made good to me the benefit she
intended for me'.
The equity of the court is not to forfeit the elector's benefit under the instrument but that as between the elector-beneficiary and the disappointed-beneficiary, the latter is entitled to sequester
or to keep back from the former the property so devised or bequeathed until compensation is
made. The essence of the doctrine, therefore, is that the elector takes against the instrument subject to an obligation to make good to the disappointed legatee the sum he is disappointed of.
Conditional Gift
In contrast, the case of conditional gift attracts forfeiture in that the beneficiary is put to his
choice between the two properties, he cannot have both. For example, where a father gives away
property belonging to his eldest son to another person and he also devises a piece of his own
property to the eldest son stating that it should be in lieu of his property which he purports to take
away from him. In such a situation the eldest son is merely put to his choice; the doctrine of election is excluded by the apparent expression of intention by the testator that the gift to the eldest
son is conditional on his giving up what the testator purports to take from him. See Wilkinson v.
Dent (1871) 6 Ch. App. 339 at 341-342.
3.3
Judicial Basis of the Doctrine
The juridical or the theoretical basis of the doctrine is not free from confusion. 'The principle is,
that there is an implied condition that he who accepts a benefit under an instrument must adopt
the whole of it, conforming to all its provisions and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.'
98
Per Lord Chelmsford in Codrington v. Codrington (1875) L.R. 7H.L. 854 at 866. In a narrow
sense, the doctrine may be said to be based on the implied intention of the donor; ordinarily a donor is presumed to have intended to dispose of all the property, including the one not belonging
to him, contained in the instrument, or that the instrument shall take effect as a whole. See Lord
Hatherley in Cooper v. Cooper (1874) L.R. 7 H.L. 53 at 71.
Thus, the person against whom the case of election arises is bound to give effect to the whole instrument, and there is an implied condition arising out of the dispositions that the person who
takes under the instrument should renounce any independent title that he has and could set up
against the instrument. Per Chitty J. in Re Wheatley (1884) 27 Ch.D. 606 at 612. But the basis of
the doctrine involves more than merely resting it on the presumed intention of the donor. 'It is
clear that such a basis, if pushed to its logical conclusion, can result in difficulties.' See Keeton;
An Introduction to Equity (6th Ed.) p.189.
For example, it is not a requirement for the operation of the doctrine that the person making the
disposition should have intended that the elector-beneficiary should take upon condition, for this
would be inconsistent with the doctrine of election where the elector can keep both properties
and then compensate the disappointed person. Secondly, it is immaterial, for the purposes of the
doctrine, whether or not the donor gives away, by mistake or by design the property which does
not belong to him. See Cooper v. Cooper (supra) at 67.
However, in Cooper v. Cooper (supra), Lord Cairn appreciated the difficulty in explaining the doctrine on the basis of the presumed intention of the donor. In his opinion the rule of election does
not proceed either upon an expressed intention, or upon a conjecture of a presumed intention, but
it proceeds on a rule of equity founded upon the highest principles of equity, and as to which the
court does not occupy itself in finding out whether the rule was present or was not present to the
mind of the party making the instrument.
As was stated by Buckley J. in Re Mengells Will Trusts (1962) Ch. 791 at 797. 'For myself I
should prefer to say that it is a doctrine by which equity fastens on the conscience of the person
who is put to his election and refuses to allow him to take the benefit of a disposition contained
in the will, the validity of which is not in question, except upon certain conditions.' The doctrine
enables the court to secure a just distribution in substantial accordance with the general scheme
of the instrument; it is a means of doing justice as between the elector-beneficiary and the disappointed person. See Lord Haldane in Brown v. Gregson (1920) A.C. 860 at 868.
3.4
Essentials of the Doctrine
The essentials of election are firstly that there should be an intention on the part of the donor to
dispose of certain property; secondly, the property should not in fact be the donor's own property; and thirdly, a benefit should be given by the disposing instrument to the true owner of the
property. (Per Jenkins L.J. in Re Edwards (1958) Ch. 168, 175 C.A.). The following analysis will
illustrate the requirements for establishing a case of election.
1.
The donor must have given his own property to the elector; it is out of this property
that the elector would compensate the disappointed person where the elector has elected
against the instrument.
In Bristow v. Warde (1794) 2 Ves. 336; 30 E.R. 660. F had a power of appointment over stock in
favour of his children. He appointed by his will part of the stock to the children and part to stran99
gers, that is, persons who were not objects of the power. The children were entitled in default of
appointment. The court held that the children could take both, that is, the part appointed to them
and also the part that was ineffectively appointed to strangers; they being entitled to it in default
of appointment. Here there was no case of election because the donor gave no property of his
own to the children. The part which was improperly appointed to strangers, belonged to the
children being the persons entitled in default of appointment and also the part appointed to them
did not belong to F and therefore F could not dispose of it as if it were his own property. The decision would have been different if F had given some of his own property by the will to his children.
Thus in Whistler v. Webstern (1794) 2 Ves. 367; 30 E.R. 676., where the facts were the same as
above except that F by his will gave some legacies out of his own property to the children, the
court held that the children must elect. If they elect in favour of the instrument, that is, the will,
they would keep the legacies bequeathed to them and allow the property wrongfully appointed to
strangers to pass in conformity with the will; but if they elect against the will, they would keep
the property wrongfully appointed to strangers and also take the legacies given to them by F, but
they must compensate the disappointed strangers out of the legacies given to them by F. The
principle is that there must always be some free disposable property given to the elector so that if
he elects against the instrument he can take out of it to compensate the disappointed person and
also if he elects in favour of the instrument the property would be a compensation for what the
donor has taken away from him.
In Taylor v. Williams (1935) 12 N.L.R. 67, where the donor purported to devise her undivided
share in a family property, which she had no power to do under customary law, the court held
that there was no case for election, for the donor had not given his own property to the person
who was being called upon to elect. Under customary law family property is indivisible and a
member has no alienable interest in the family property. See Ogunmefun v. Ogunmefun (1931)
10 N.L.R. 82.
2.
The donor must have given the elector's property to another person.
The principle is that the donor must have taken away some of the elector's property for which
the elector has been compensated by the donor's gift to him. See James V.C. In Wollaston v.
King (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. Cas. 165, 173; Romily M.R. in Box v. Bartett (1866) L.R. 3 Eq. Cas. 244,
248.
Thus, where an appointor under special power of appointment, wrongfully appoints the property
to a stranger and gives his own property to the object of the power who also is entitled in default
of appointment, the object of the power would have to elect; he owns the improperly appointed
property being the person entitled to it in default of appointment and the appointor has also given his own property to the object of the power. See Re Fletcher (1936) 2 All E.R. 236. But a mere
object of a special power of appointment, who per se is not entitled in default of appointment,
cannot be called upon to elect though the subject-matter of the power is appointed to another
person and the appointor gives his own property to the mere object of the power, the reason being that no property of the mere object of the power is given to a stranger; the subject-matter of
the power is not that of the mere object until it is appointed to him and cannot be his if it is appointed to a stranger.
Where an appointor makes an appointment in favour of a stranger which appointment is invalid
because it offends the rule against perpetuities there is no case of election even though the object
100
of the power is entitled in default of appointment and also the appointor has given some of his
own property to him. In Re Nash(1910) 1 Ch. 1, the appointor by his will made an appointment in favour
of a non object; the appointment was held void because if offended the rule against perpetuities; it was further
held that there was no case for election even though the appointor gave his own property to the object of the
power who was also entitled in default of appointment. (See further Wollaston v. King (supra)). Similarly, an appointment in favour of the object of a power who is also entitled in default of appointment, will not be
a proper case of an election where the appointor imposes a trust or a wholly ineffective condition in favour of a
stranger. See Re Neave (1938) Ch. 793; Blacket v. Lamb (1851) 14 Beav. 482; 51 E.R. 311.
In Wooldridge v. Wooldridge (1859) Johns 63 at 69; 70 E.R. 340, it was stated that 'where there is an
absolute appointment by will in favour of a proper object of the power, and that appointment is
followed by attempts to modify the interest so appointed in a manner which the law will not allow, the court reads the will as if all, the passages in which such attempts are made were swept
out of it, for all intents and purposes, that is, not only so far as they attempt to regulate the quantum of interest to be enjoyed by the appointee in the settled property, but also so far as they
might otherwise have been relied upon as raising a case of election.' Thus, there must be some
disposition of property which the donor had no right to dispose of to make it a case of election.
See Box v. Barrett (1866) L.R. 3 Eq. Cas. 244 at 248.
3.
The Two Gifts must have been Made in the Same Instrument
The doctrine of election can only apply when it arises within the document which raises the case
of election, for example, where a will contains a gift of property not within the testator's disposing power and a gift of the testator's disposing power and a gift of the testator's own property to
the owner of the property which the testator purports to dispose of to another person. In Gibson v.
Gibson (1852) 1 Drew 42 at 51-52; 61 E.R. 367, Kindersley V.C. observed: 'The doctrine of election, as applicable equally to all cases, is that a person who is entitled to any benefit under a will
or other instrument, must, if he claims that benefit, abandon every interest the assertion of which
would defeat, even partially, any of the provisions of the will or instrument that in no case is a
person to be put to election, unless it is clear that the provisions of the instrument, under which
he is entitled to a benefit, would be in some degree defeated by the assertion of his other right.'
In Re Edwards (1958) Ch. 168 at 177, T by her will devised Blueacre and some other properties to
E and six others. Later, T entered into an oral agreement with E whereby Blueacre was given
away to E for valuable consideration. T died without having altered her will. The question was
whether E should be put on election. On the face of the will it is clear that T had disposed of certain property belonging to E and had also conferred certain benefits on E. But the Court of Appeal held there was no case for election on the ground that the consequence of the inter vivos
disposition of Blue acre was that at T's death there was no intention on his part to make a testamentary gift of Blueacre. The devise of Blueacre under the will had been revoked by reason of its
disposition inter vivos, so that at T's death Blueacre was adeemed. Jenkins L.J. observed: 'The
true position in such a case is, as it seems to me, that the testamentary disposition has clearly
gone, and the person in whose favour the disposition of the property inter vivos is made simply
takes it under that disposition without any question of his or her thereby taking against the will,
and thus, being disqualified from receiving any benefit under the will.'
The gift of Blueacre under T's will was not an effective gift to anyone. 'There was, therefore, no
beneficial interest on which the gift in the will could operate, and it was for all material purposes
as though the gift had been struck out of the will.' Per Romer L.J., Ibid., at 179. Thus, in this
case, no property of the person who would have been called upon to elect was in fact given away
by the will upon which the plaintiff rested his case for election.
101
4.
The donor's property which is given to the elector must be freely alienable so that it
could be available for compensation if the elector elects against the instrument.
It is settled that the doctrine of election does not involve forfeiture, but involves compensation
out of the property which is given to the elector by the instrument, so that in the event of an election against the instrument, the elector could freely alienate that property for the purpose of making compensation to the disappointed person. See Re Wheatley (1884) 27 Ch.D. 606 at 612. It
follows that if the property is not freely alienable, there is no case for election.
In Re Wheatley (supra), the donor's property was given to a married woman subject to a restraint
upon anticipation. The property was given by the same instrument as that which gives rise to the
question of election. Chitty J. held that the woman could not be called upon to elect, as the property given to her has, by the terms of the instrument, been made inalienable and, therefore, there
was no property out of which compensation could be made to the disappointed person in the
event of an election against the instrument. Where property is given in such a manner, the donor
is presumed to have intended it as a personal provision and for the donee's inalienable use; to
imply a condition of election in that circumstance would be to imply a condition of election
against the express language of the instrument.
Thus, in Re Vardons Trusts (1885) 31 Ch.D. 275, a marriage settlement settled a fund for the
separate use of the wife for life subject to a restraint upon anticipation; the effect of it was that
the income of the fund should be paid to the Wife for her sole and separate use and that she
should not have power to dispose or deprive herself of the benefit thereof: the settlement also
contained a covenant by the wife to settle after-acquired property. The court held that the settlement contained a declaration of a particular intention inconsistent with the doctrine of election
and therefore the wife could not be compelled to elect between after-acquired property and her
interest in the settled fund, but was entitled to retain both as her income from the settled fund had
been made inalienable by the terms of the settlement.
The principle is that the property must be freely alienable for purposes of making compensation
as at the time the donee is called upon to elect. In Haynes v. Foster (1901) 1 Ch.361, Kekewich J.,
held that the restraint on anticipation did not become wholly inoperative against alienation if, at
any time during her enjoyment she had become discovert by reason of the death of her husband;
therefore, she could not be called upon to elect. The rationale of this decision is that the restraint
on anticipation was operative as at the time she was being called upon to elect. But in Re Tongue
(1915) 1 Ch.390, followed in Re Hargrove (1915) 1 Ch.398, it was held that the presumed intention of the donor was that the restraint on anticipation should be limited to the period under
coverture, so that a spinster to whom an interest with a restraint on anticipation during coverture
had been given by the same instrument which gave rise to the question of election, must elect.
Even in Re Hargrove (supra) at 407, where the restraint on anticipation was not in terms confined to
coverture, the spinster was put to election. As Astbury J. observed in that case 'the imposition of
a mere future restraint on anticipation is no bar for their doing so, and does not, therefore, prevent the doctrine of election from applying to them'.
5.
The Elector's Property which the Donor Purports to Dispose of must be Freely
Alienable
The principle on which the doctrine is based is that a man shall not be allowed to approbate and
102
reprobate, and that if, he approbates he shall do all in his power to confirm the instrument which
he approbates. See Re Lord Chesham (1886) 31 Ch.D. 466 at 473. Therefore, where the elector
takes in favour of the instrument he must transfer his own property which the donor purports to
dispose of, in accordance with the wishes of the donor. Election in this respect presupposes that
the person who is being called upon to elect has a freely disposable interest in his own property
which he can alienate in compliance with the donor's wishes, otherwise there is no case for election.
Thus, there is no case for election where the property sought to be disposed of is a family member's interest in a family property. This is because under customary law a family property is indivisible and a member of the family has no alienable interest in the family property; (Ogunmefun
v. Ogunmefun (1931) 10 N.L.R. 82) or where the property is owned by a married woman subject
to an operative restrain upon anticipation. See Re Wheatley (1884) 277 Ch.D. 606. Election
means free choice, it follows that the doctrine cannot be introduced where it is impossible for the
person against whom it is pleaded effectively to exercise the election demanded.
In the leading case of Re Lord Chesham (supra) at 472, T by his will gave certain chattels upon trust
for sale for the benefit of A and B and gave the residue of his estate to C. The chattels were in
fact to be enjoyed by C with a land the subject-matter of a trust of which C was a tenant for life.
The question was whether C could be called upon to elect. The court found that if C elected in
favour of the will as he was entitled to do under the doctrine of election, he had no disposable interest in the chattels which he could make over to A and B it was, therefore, held that C could not
be put to his election.
Chitty J. saidIn effect it is the paramount title of the trustees, who are not affected by any question of
election, rather than the restricted interest of C, which prevents effect being given to the
bequest of the chattels. A court of Equity never decrees an act to be done which is a
breach of trust, or a mere idle act which could only lead to litigation. And inasmuch as no
assignment by C of his interest could be framed which would not be a breach of trust, or
which could confer any benefit on A and B, it would not order him (C) to execute any assignment of the chattels for the purpose of confirming the will.
C, not being able to make an assignment of the chattels because he had no assignable interest in
them, took the residue given to him by the donor without compensating A and B.
Similarly, in Brown v. Gregson (1920) A.C. 860, the property of the person being called upon to
elect was foreign land and by the lex situs, the owner of the land could not deal with it in the
manner directed by the donor; the House of Lords held that in that circumstance there was no
case for election; election does not arise where the donee cannot give effect to the instrument.
There is no question of compensation since compensation is only made where it is possible to
elect (Re Lord Chesham (supra) at 476; otherwise it would amount to an application of the doctrine of cypres to the doctrine of election. See Brown v. Gregson (1920) AC. 860 at 877; per Viscount Finlay.
In Re Dicey (1951) 1 Ch. 145 at 154, the defendant objected to election on the ground that the obligation to elect is limited to cases in which the party so bound, if he elects in favour of the instrument is able to make the other relevant provisions take effect precisely accordingly to their
terms. In that case the defendant, who had received some benefit under the donor's will, was only
a part-owner of the property which the donor purported to give to the plaintiff so that if he the
103
defendant elected in favour of the instrument he would have been able to benefit the plaintiff only in respect of his own share of the property while the other part would remain outstanding in his
co-owner who was not affected by the question of election.
Romer L.J. held that the defendant must elect. The court observed that the obligation to elect
does not depend upon the power of the elector to secure that the other relevant disposition in the
instrument takes effect according to its exact terms. The principle of election is that if the elector
elects in favour of the instrument he shall do all in his power to confirm the instrument which he
approbates; he is not required to conform to all the relevant provisions, in as much as he confirms
the instrument so far as he can and gives up to the disappointed person any of his own beneficial
interest that he can freely dispose of in the property which the donor sought to give away.See Re
Lord Chesham (supra) at pp. 472-473.
Thus, a testator gives Blackacre or the proceeds of its sale to A. Blackacre in fact belongs to B, C
and D as joint tenants and the testator gives legacies to each of these persons. Each of them has a
separate and individual right and obligation to elect for or against the will, notwithstanding that
the gift to A can only take full effect according to its terms if B, C and D all elect in favour of the
will. In other words, a class is not exempted from the principle of election merely because each
can contribute only a part of the total subject-matter of the gift which the testator-donor has purported to effect. Re Dicey (supra) at pp. 158-159. See further Fytche v. Fytche (1868) 7 Eq. Cas.
494.
The principle is to secure a just distribution not necessarily in the precise terms of the instrument
but in substantial accordance with the general scheme of the instrument. Per Viscount Haldane in
Brown v. Gregson (1920) AC. 866 at 868.
6.
The Donor must Manifest a Clear Intention on the Face of the Instrument to Dispose
of the Elector's Property
Where the instrument manifests an intention on the part of the donor to dispose of the elector's
property, the doctrine operates and it is immaterial that the disposition was by mistake or by design. See Welby v. Welby (1813) 2 V. & B. 187, 199; 35 E.R. 296. The principle is that the donor
intends that his instrument shall take full effect. Thus, in Cooper v. Cooper (1874) L.R. 7 H.L.
53 at 78, T, by her will gave Blackacre to X and at the same time gave a legacy to Y. At the time
the will was made Z was entitled to the proceeds of Blackacre. Z predeceased T; on Z's intestacy,
Y became his sole next-of-kin and, therefore, entitled to Blackacre. On T's death the question
was whether Y should elect between Blackacre and the legacy. It was held that he must elect. In
that case, Lord Moncreiff said 'It is quite fixed that it is wholly immaterial whether the testator
thought that he had the power to convey the property, or knowing that he had not the power,
usurped it. The rule in regard to election is in either case precisely the same'.
The general scheme of disposition as contained in the instrument must be capable of raising a
general intention on the part of the donor that effect shall be given to every part of the instrument. Thus, the doctrine of election rests, not on the particular provisions of the instrument
which raises the election, but on the presumption of a general intention in the maker of an instrument that effect shall be given to every part of it. See Re Vardons Trusts (1885) 31 Ch.D.
275 at 279. The mere fact that the circumstances which give rise to election could not have been
in the contemplation of the maker of the instrument is not sufficient to repel the general and presumed intention. Thus, in Cooper v. Cooper (supra), the elector's property which was given away
was not owned by the elector at the time the instrument which gave rise to election was made
104
and, the circumstances, and the events which subsequently vested the ownership of the property
in the elector were such that could not have been contemplated by the maker of the instrument.
However, the general and presumed intention is conclusively repelled by an expressed declaration, contained in the instrument, that in no case should the doctrine of election be applied to the
provisions of the instrument. Re Vardons Trust (supra) at 279. Similarly the doctrine of election is excluded where the instrument itself merely denotes of a particular intention which is inconsistent with the general and presumed intention which is the foundation of the doctrine. For
example, if an instrument contains a provision such that, if the donee were put on his election
and by electing he would be doing precisely what the instrument prohibits him from doing, such
a provision denotes a particular intention inconsistent with the general and presumed intention
which gives rise to election, and therefore excludes the doctrine. Such is the case where a married woman is given property in restraint on anticipation. See Re Vardons (supra) at 280.
The general and presumed intention of the donor to dispose of property over which he had no
control must appear on the face of the instrument which is alleged to have made such disposition.
There is no law which entitles a person to dispose of the property of another without his consent.
No one can give what he does not own. However, for the purposes of election, whether or not
there is such intention depends on the construction of the instrument. Once it is clear from the
instrument itself that the author of the instrument intends to dispose of property which does not
belong to him, that is sufficient for purposes of election. Where the donor employs general words
in describing the subject-matter of the property and thereby creating some uncertainty as to the
property he intended to dispose of, parol evidence is admissible with a view to identifying the
property; parol evidence is, however, not admissible to show that the donor employed general
words in disposing of the property because he believed himself to be the owner-this is to prevent
evidence of intention that is not raised by the instrument itself. See Doe d. Oxenden v. Chichester (1816) 4 Dow. 65 at 90; 3 E.R. 1091.
Where a donor, by an instrument purports to dispose of property, it is presumed that he intends to
dispose of property over which he has control. A man must be presumed to have intended to give
what he actually possessed. The onus of proof lay on the person who alleged the contrary. See
Turner, L.J. in Evans v. Evans (1863) 2 New. Rep. 408, 410. Accordingly, where a donor has a limited interest in property forming the subject-matter of a gift the presumption is that he intends
to dispose only of that interest; and the court will construe the instrument in the light of this intention, for, the intention to make a disposition extending beyond that interest cannot be made
sufficiently clear to raise a case of election by anything short of positive declaration. See Wintour
v. Clifton (1856) 8 De G.M. & G. 641 at 650-651; 44 E.R. 537.
However, in certain circumstances particularly in the case of a will, the court may gather an intention by the testator to include property belonging to another in a gift of residue. Thus, in Re
Allen (1945) 2 All E.R. 264 at 267-268, the testator made a general gift of residue in which he only had a limited interest, in that he held it jointly with his widow who was a beneficiary under the
will. The question was whether the gift of 'the residue of my property' was limited to the testator's own share of the joint estate or was intended to include the widow's share so as to put the
widow on her election. Cohen J., in the course of his judgment in which the widow was put to
election, said - 'I readily accept that a mere general devise or bequest would not of itself raise a
question of election, but I cannot regard this passage as concluding the matter. The question
whether a beneficiary under a will is put to his election depends on whether the testator has purported to dispose of his or her property. This must depend on the construction of the will as a
whole, and if I am satisfied that upon the proper construction of the will as a whole the residuary
105
gift included property of a beneficiary, it must follow that the beneficiary is put to his election.'
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE I
List the essentials of the doctrine of election.
Other Relevant Points
Derivative Interests:
(1) Where a testator sought to dispose of property which does not belong to him and that property was derivatively acquired through some one who could not be put to election, there will be no
case for election. Thus in Grissell v. Swinhoe (1869) L.R. 7 Eq. Cas. 291, T, by his will sought to
dispose of a married woman's property and at the same time conferred some benefits on her husband, who subsequently on the death of his wife became entitled to his wife's property including
the one T sought to dispose of. The court held that there was no case for election against the husband; the wife, through whom he derived title to the property which T sought to dispose of,
could not be put to her election, because she did not receive any benefits under T's will, and secondly, the property was not his at T's death when T's will became operative.
(2) Where a person who had the obligation to elect had elected such election would be binding
on him and whosoever takes under him. But there may be difficulties if he dies without having
elected. If the elector's property devolved in one direction, his successor would be standing in his
shoes and would be called upon to elect. See Fytche v. Fytche (1868) L.R. 7 Eq. 494. In Cooper v. Cooper (supra), T gave property to A and devised A's property to C. A died without having
elected and all his property devolved on B. It was held that B, being the person standing in As
place, must elect. But where the elector's properties devolve in different directions, there is no
case for election; however, the obligation to compensate the disappointed person falls on the person who succeeds to the benefits out of which compensation would have been made to the disappointed person if he had elected against the instrument in his life time.
In Pickersgill v. Rodgers (1876) 5 Ch.D. 163 at 173, the donor, by her will, bequeathed J's money to X and gave her own property Blueacre to J who died without having elected. By his will, J
gave his personalty to A and devised to Y. The question was whether the duty to pay compensation to X, the disappointed legatee under the donor's will, fell on Y to pay it out of the Blueacre
or whether it was to be paid by A from J's personal estate bequeathed to him. Jessel M.R. held
that (on the principle that the person taking the property so devised or bequeathed takes it subject
to an obligation to make good to the disappointed legatee the sum he is disappointed of) the duty
to pay compensation to X, the disappointed legatee fell on Y, being the beneficiary of Blue acre
out of which compensation, would have been paid by J had he elected in his lifetime. 'The very
instrument which gives him (Y) the benefit, gives him the benefit burdened with the obligation.
X, the disappointed person, had an equitable charge or right to realise out of that property the
sum required to make the compensation.
It follows that the estate of the elector who died without having elected, is not exonerated from
the payment of compensation for which the elector would have been liable had he elected in his
life time. The value of that liability would have to be ascertained by an inquiry as to the amount
of benefits which the elector received in his lifetime under the will of the donor, and the liability
is to be discharged only to the extent of the benefit derived by the elector under the donor's will.
106
Thus, if the value of elector's property of which the donor sought to dispose exceeds the benefit
conferred on the elector by the donor's will, the elector's successor in title to such benefit is not
under any obligation to pay more than the value of that benefit even though he received some
other benefits out of the elector's estate. See Rogers v. Jones (1876) 3 Ch.D. 688. For example, if
the elector's property of which the donor sought to dispose is valued N1000 and the benefit conferred on the elector under the donor's will is worth N500, the amount of compensation payable
to the disappointed person will not exceed N 500.
Time to Assess the Value of the Property of the Elector for the Purposes of Compensation
Where a donee under a will is put to his election and he elects to take against the instrument, he
has a duty to compensate the legatee or beneficiary who is disappointed by such election. The
amount of compensation payable is the value of the electors property of which the testator
sought to dispose, and, the value of the property is to be ascertained as at the date of the testator's
death and not when the election is made. See Re Hancock (1905) 1 Ch. 16.
Satisfaction and Election:
A beneficiary under a will is put to his election, that is, to give effect to the will as a whole, on
the principle that the testator has conferred some benefits on the beneficiary and at the same time
attempted to dispose of the beneficiary's property. Where the benefit or legacy given to the beneficiary is in satisfaction of a debt, there can be no election, for, no benefit has in fact, been conferred on him. But if the legacy was in satisfaction of a statute-barred debt, such legacy is generally regarded as a bounty, for the testator has no legal obligation to pay the debt, therefore, the
beneficiary is bound to elect. Re Fletcher s Settlement Trusts (1936) 2 All E.R. 236, 239.
Rights of Elector:
Whenever a person is put to his election, the court has jurisdiction in equity to compel a final
election 'so as to quiet the title of those interested in the objects of which one is to be chosen.'
See Douglas v. Douglas (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. Cas. 617 at 637; See further, Gretton v. Howard
(1819) 1 Swans. 409; 36 E.R. 443. However, as a condition precedent to the exercise of this jurisdiction, the court will secure to the elector, the right to all information necessary to guide him
in his choice. Douglas v. Douglas (supra). He must be given a genuine opportunity of ascertaining the relative values of the properties before electing in favour or against the instrument. He is
even entitled to bring an action with a view to knowing the nature and extent of his rights and to
ascertain the relative values of the properties between which he is called upon to elect. See Butricke v. Broadhurst (1790) 1 Ves. Jun. 171; 30 E.R. 286; Worthington v. Wiginton (1855) 20
Beav. 67, 74; 52 E.R. 527. In Kidney v. Coussmaker (1806) 12 Yes. 136 at 153; 33 E.R. 53, a
widow-elector was held not bound by an election made under a mistaken impression of the extent of the claim against her.
Election may be Express or Implied:
Election may be express or may be implied from the acts or conduct of the person bound to elect;
whether or not a person bound to elect has elected is a question of fact. In the case of express
election, a communication by the elector to the affected party of his intention to pay compensation is a sufficient evidence of his election against the instrument. Similarly, there would seem to
be an express election where an elector transfers, in accordance with the directions in the instrument that gives rise to election, his own property of which the donor sought to dispose, to the
107
person to whom the property was purportedly given by the instrument, and he at the same time
accepts the benefit conferred on him by the instrument.
It is more difficult to establish implied election since the fact of election must be clearly established; moreover, there does not seem to be any general principle indicating all the circumstances
necessary to prove or constitute an election. However, to infer an election, there must be clear
proof that the person called upon to elect knew that the donor had not the power to give the property which he purported to dispose of, and that he the elector is the owner of that property. There
must be evidence that the elector was aware of the gift made to him by the donor; also he must
know the relative values of the properties between which he is called upon to elect; he must
know that in equity he must have to elect between the two; and that having that knowledge the
elector made a deliberate choice with the intention of making it. See Dillon v. Parker (1818) 1
Swanst, 359; 36 E.R. 422; Sweetman v. Sweetman (1868) 2 I.R. Eq. 141; Spread v. Morgan (1865)
11 H.L.C. 588.
It follows that the mere fact that a person, who is bound to elect, continues to enjoy the two
properties may not be a conclusive inference that he intends to elect against the instrument if he
was not aware of his rights. See Padbury v. Clarke (1850) 2 Mac. & G. 298, 306; 42 E.R. 115.
Nevertheless, 'from a long course of leading, from a series of acts, the court is at liberty, as an
inference of fact, to conclude that the party called upon to elect knew his rights, knew the value
of both estates, and knew the rule of equity, that he was bound to elect, and had, with the full
knowledge, made his choice, with the intention of making it, and of electing between the two estates'. Per Chatterton V-C, in Sweetman v. Sweetman (supra). The series of acts or dealings from
which election is to be implied must be consistent only with that of an elector who was fully
aware of his rights. Dillon v. Parker (1818) 1 Swanst. 359 at 380. The burden of proof is on the
party who alleges implied election. See Sweetman v. Sweetman (supra); Spread v. Morgan
(1865) 11 H.L.C. 588.
Time to Elect:
Prima facie, there is no time limit within which election is to be made; but a time limit may be
specified or imposed by the instrument or by the court. Where there is such time limit, a person
who is bound to elect but fails to elect within the time stipulated is deemed to have elected
against the instrument, and will be under a duty to compensate the disappointed person. See
Streatfield v. Streatfield (1735) 1 Swanst. 447; 36 E.R. 459.
Where there is no time limit for electing, failure to elect for a considerable length of time per se
will not imply an election, thus a person bound to elect may continue with the enjoyment of the
property given from him, as he had been doing before the operative date of the instrument by
which the donor purports to dispose of the property to another; but if by such continuous act of
his, so long a time has elapsed that it can reasonably be inferred that he has acquiesced in the
other's enjoyment of the property given to him by the instrument and that it would be inequitable
to disturb such other's enjoyment, he may be said to have elected to take, not his own property
and making compensation, but what the will gives to him, that is permitting the specific enjoyment of his own property under the will. See Tibbits v. Tibbits (1816) 19 Ves. 656 at 663-664; 34
E.R. 659.
Who may elect:
Any person who is sui juris, and who is mentally sound is capable of electing. Where an infant is
108
bound to elect, the court usually elects for him after an enquiry as to what is best for the infant in
the circumstance. See Seton v. Smith (1840) 11 Sim 59 at 66; 59 E.R. 796. A similar course of
action is followed in the case of a person of unsound mind. See Wilder v. Piggott (1883) 22
Ch.D. 263 at 269.
4.0
CONCLUSION
Election may be express or may be implied from the acts or conduct of the person bound to elect.
The essentials of election are firstly that there should be an intention on the part of the donor to
dispose of certain property; secondly the property should not in fact be the donor's own property;
and thirdly, a benefit should be given by the disposing instrument to the true owner of the property.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the doctrine of election. You should now be able to: explain the
doctrine of election; enumerate the judicial basis of the doctrine; and list the essentials of the doctrine.
6.0
Enumerate the judicial basis of the doctrine of election.
7.0
UNIT 6
SATISFACTION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Definition of satisfaction
3.2
Satisfaction of debt by legacy
3.3
Satisfaction of portion debt by legacies or by subsequent portions
3.4
Satisfaction of legacy by legacy
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit we considered the doctrine of election. In this unit we will consider the doctrine
109
of satisfaction. Equitable doctrine of satisfaction is said to be founded on the maxim that equity
imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation. That may be so, but there are one or two heads of
satisfaction whose operation can, in addition, be explained on the basis of one or two other maxims. For example, the heads of satisfaction which operate in the narrow area of relationship of
father and child or one in locoparentis and a child may also be explained on the basis of the rule
that equity leans against double portions or equality is equity. As Lord Cranworth observed in
Chichester v. Conventry (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 71, the rule against double portions is a useful rule
which carried into effect the intention of parents and others in loco-parentis, making provisions
for those for whom they are bound to provide.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Define satisfaction;
(ii) Explain satisfaction of debt by legacy;
(iii) Explain how legacy can be used to satisfy a legacy.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Definition of satisfaction
Satisfaction is the gift or donation of a thing with the intention that it shall be taken either wholly
or partly in extinguishment of some prior claim of the donee. Thus, the doctrine becomes relevant where X, who had been under a certain obligation to give something to Z, donates a thing
(which is not directly connected with the discharge of his obligation) to Z; such a donation, subject to the fulfillment of some other attendant requirements, raises a presumption that the intention of X in making the donation is to satisfy or discharge his prior obligation to Z.
Before a presumption of satisfaction can be raised, two basic requirements must be met: first the
donation must have been made in such circumstances that an intention on the part of the donor to
satisfy an obligation can be presumed since the essence of the equitable doctrine of satisfaction is
to carry into effect the presumed intention of the donor. See Cranmer's case (1702) 2 Salk 508;
91 E.R. 434. In Goldsmid v. Goldsmid (1818) 1 Wils. Ch. 140, 149, Plumer M.R. said "where
there is a question of satisfaction, there must be a reference to the intention. Satisfaction is a
substitution of one thing for another; and the question in cases of that kind is whether the substituted thing was given for the thing proposed." 37 E.R. 63.
Second, there must be some prior and existing claim of the donee; cases of genuine equitable satisfaction presuppose an existing obligation which the donor is presumed to have intended to satisfy. See Re Fletcher (1888) 38 Ch. D. 373. While all heads of satisfaction must necessarily satisfy the former requirement, as will be seen below, not all satisfy the latter requirement. For this
reason it may not be all that correct to classify as cases of equitable satisfaction those heads of
satisfaction that cannot meet the two requirements.
Define satisfaction.
3.2
Satisfaction of Debt by Legacy

110
Where a testator gives a legacy to his creditor without any reference to the debt, such legacy,
(subject to the fulfillment of the requirements discussed below), will be presumed to be a satisfaction of the testator's indebtedness to the donee. In other words, the intention of the testator, in that circumstance, is presumed to be that his creditor/donee shall not have both the debt and the legacy, and if the
presumption is sustained, the legacy discharges the testator's prior obligation to pay the debt.
The role was stated by Sir J. Trevor M.R in Talbott v. Duke of Shrewsbury (1714) Prec. Ch. 394 at 395;
24 E.R. 177. 'If one, being indebted to another in a sum of money, does by his will give him a sum of
money as great as, or greater than, the debt, without taking any notice at all of the debt, this shall, nevertheless, be in satisfaction of the debt, so that he shall not have both the debt and the legacy. The rule may
be said to have been founded on the maxim 'debitor non praesumitur donare', a debtor is not presumed to
give; he is presumed to intend to be just before being generous. As stated above, the rule is a mere presumption and can, therefore, be rebutted.
Circumstances Rebutting the Presumption
(i) The presumption is rebutted where the legacy is smaller than the debt. In Coates v. Coates (l898) 1 I.R.
258, the Vice-Chancellor observed that the nature of the legacy must correspond with the nature of the
obligation to be conclusive satisfaction. In that case it was held that the legacy of 12/- a week could not
operate as a satisfaction of the testator's liability under the separation deed of the greater amount of 15/-.
'That which is less is not to be presumed in satisfaction of that which is greater'; see Atkinson v. Webb
(1704) 2 Vern. 478, 479; 23 E.R. 907; Crichton (1895) 2 Ch. 853. Furthermore there is no pro tanto
satisfaction of a debt by a legacy. See Atkinson v. Webb (supra). The whole essence of the doctrine
therefore, is that the debtor can be held to have offered the creditor something equivalent to his debt or
greater than it. See Stirling J. in Re Horlock (1895) 1 Ch. 516 at 518.
In Fitzgerald v. National Bank (1929) 1 K.B. 394. Talbot J., held that a debt of 100 which carried an interest of 5% was satisfied by a legacy of 100; the mere fact that the interest on the debt was in arrears at
the time of the testator's death was immaterial. It was argued that the sum due in respect of the debt must
necessarily be different from the legacy by reason of the fact that the debt carried interest; the contention
seems to be that prima facie the legacy is equal to the debt but when the interest due on the debt is added,
the legacy is less than the debt and, therefore, there cannot be presumption of satisfaction. The court could
not find any authority for this proposition. Talbot J., decided in favour of presumption of satisfaction because the legacy was equal to the debt and the presumption was not thereby rebutted by the mere fact that
debt carried interest from day to day.
(ii) There is no presumption of satisfaction where the debt was contracted subsequently to or even contemporaneously with the making of the will; there cannot be an intention to satisfy a non-existing obligation. In Cranners Case (1702) 2 Salk. 508; 91 E.R. 434, the testator, who was indebted to C for
a sum of 50, thereafter proceeded to make a will by which he gave C 500. Subsequently, he
borrowed 150 from C and died.
The Master of Rolls decreed that the legacy was a satisfaction of both debts but Harcourt L.C.
reversed the decree 'because a Court of Equity ought not to hinder a man from disposing of his
own as he pleases; and when he says he gives a legacy, we cannot contradict him, and say he pay
a debt;' therefore, the debt contracted subsequently to the making of the will could not raise a
case of satisfaction. If the doctrine of satisfaction is truly based on the presumed intention of the
testator, it is impossible for the testator to have intended to satisfy an obligation that was not in
existence at the time of making the will. For the same reason there may not be presumption of
satisfaction where the debt was contracted contemporaneously with the making of the will.
111
In Wiggins v. Horlock (1888) 39 Ch.D. 142, the legatee claimed to be entitled to 100 under a
deed and to a legacy of 100; both the deed and the will were made substantially contemporaneously. Cotton L.J. found that there was no evidence to presume that one gift was intended to
be in satisfaction of the other. 'I do not say that in no case can a presumption of satisfaction arise
where the documents are contemporaneous; but their being so is an important consideration.' (Ibid., at 146) 'The language of this will did not show that the testator intended by his will the same
100 as was mentioned in the convenant.' (Ibid., at 147 per Bowen, L.J.) In cases where the debt
is contracted contemporaneously with the making of the will, presumption of satisfaction depends on the intention of the testator as could be gathered from the language of his will.
(iii) There is no presumption of satisfaction where the legacy is not in every way as beneficial
and advantageous as the debt. It is a settled principle that if the legacy is less than the debt there
is no satisfaction even pro tanto. The same principle applies where the debt is certain and the
legacy is contingent or uncertain, even though the legacy is of greater amount than the debt. As
North J., observed in Crichton v. Crichton (1895) 2 Ch. 853 at 858, 'I cannot understand how the
father's debt or liability to the son could be satisfied by investments in the joint names which ultimately survived to the father, the debtor; nor how the son's certainty of succeeding ultimately to
one moiety of the settled funds could be satisfied by giving him a chance of succeeding to something else.' Uncertainty of a legacy makes it less beneficial and less advantageous than the debt
which is certain.
Contingency of legacy as a bar to satisfaction was emphasised in the early case of Talbott v.
Duke of Shrewsbury (1794) Pre. Ch. 394 at 395; 24 E.R. 177 where the Master of Rolls said 'but
if such a legacy were given upon a contingency which if it should not happen, the legacy would
not take place, in that case though the contingency does actually happen and the legacy thereby
became due, yet it shall not go in satisfaction of the debt because a debt, which is certain shall
not be merged or lost by an uncertain and contingent recompense, for whatsoever is to be a satisfaction of a debt, ought to be so in its creation and at the very time it is given which such contingent provision is not .. if the provision be absolute and certain, it shall go in satisfaction of the
debt; but if it be uncertain, and contingent, it can be no satisfaction because it could not be so in
its creation and the happening of the contingency afterwards will not alter the nature of it.'
Whether a legacy is not as beneficial and advantageous as a debt is a question of fact to be determined with reference to the facts of each case. In Re Haves (1951) 2 All E.R 928, the testator, in
his lifetime, covenanted with his former wife to pay her the sum of 3 a week. He subsequently
bequeathed the sum of 3 a week to her. The question was whether the will, being later than the
deed of covenant, operated in satisfaction of the covenanted annuity. Harman J. held that there
was presumption of satisfaction as the gift by will was found to be as advantageous as the covenanted sum and that the testator intended to satisfy his obligation by the disposition in his will.
But on a similar fact, in Re Van den Berghs Will Trust (1948) 1 All E.R 935, Romer J. held that there
could not be presumption of satisfaction on the ground that the provision by the will was different from the covenanted annuity and was also less advantageous to the person concerned. The
servant who was entitled to the annuity under the deed could dispose of the annuity as he wished
under the deed, but he would lose the annuity completely if he attempted to do so under the will.
The position is not clear whether a legacy for which no time of payment is fixed in the will is less
advantageous to the creditor than a debt which is owing and due at the time of the testator's
death. In Re Horlock (1895) 1 Ch. 516 at 522, Stirling J., held that such a legacy is less beneficial;
112
a finding that rebuts presumption of satisfaction. He approved of the statement made by Lord
Hardwicke in Clark v. Sewell (1744) 3 Atk. 86 at 98; 26 E.R 858 that 'a legacy that ought to be
deemed a satisfaction must take place immediately after the death of the testator'.
Where there is a difference, in any circumstance between a legacy and the debt which makes the
latter less beneficial than the former, there will be no presumption of satisfaction. A difference in
time is material in rebutting the presumption that the rule of satisfaction applies even in cases
where no time has been fixed by the testator for the payment of the legacy. See Clark v. Sewell
(supra). Furthermore, a legacy directed to be paid six months after the testator's death is not immediately as beneficial to the creditor as the payment of debt to which he is entitled before or at
the death of the testator. See Haynes v. Mico (1781) 1 Bro. C.C. 129; 28 E.R. 1031.
However, in Re Rattenbury (1906) 1 Ch. 667, Swinfen Eady J. held that the legacy was to be in satisfaction of the debt despite the fact that the legacy was not payable until a year after the death
of the testator. He qualified Lord Harwicke's observation in Clarke v. Sewell as meaning that the
payment of the legacy must not be postponed by the testator; therefore, if it should be payable in
due course of administration and if the legacy carries interest from the death of the testator, it is
as beneficial as the debt and, therefore, a satisfaction of the debt. See further Re Stibbe (1946)
175 L.T. 198, 201.
(iv) There is no presumption of satisfaction where there is contrary intention (express or implied) in the will of the testator.
Where there is an express direction in a will for payment of debts and legacies, such direction is
sufficient to rebut presumption of satisfaction and it will be assumed that prima facie both will be
payable. See Chancey's Case (1725) 1 P. Wms 408; 24 E.R. 448. In Bradshaw v. Huish (1889) 43
Ch. 260 at 264, Kay J. stated that 'it has long been settled that in the case of a debt owing by a testator, if
the testator afterwards makes a will and gives a legacy of the same or a greater amount to the creditor and
then in his will directs that his debts and legacies shall be paid, that direction rebuts the presumption of
satisfaction of the debt by the legacy. The position is the same where the will merely contains a direction
to pay debts. There is no difference between a direction to pay debts and legacies because the gift of a
legacy is in itself a direction that the legacy shall be paid. Therefore, all that is material is that there
should be a direction that debts should be paid. It is not necessary in a will to give a direction to pay debts
at all. If such a direction is inserted it may be assumed to be there for some purpose.
Similarly, in Re Manners (1949) Ch. 613 at 618, Evershed M.R. said 'I think from a consideration
of other cases and of the textbooks, that it seems tolerably clear that a direction for payment either of debts and legacies, or of debts simpliciter, is treated as being something which prima facie
takes the case altogether out of the rule'. In that case a mere direction by the testator for payment
of his debts was held sufficient to rebut the presumption that a covenant made by him during his
lifetime for a payment of life annuity was satisfied by a direction in his will to purchase out of
part of his estate a like annuity for the same person.
A contrary intention will also be implied where the testator states a particular motive for the legacy other than in satisfaction of the debt. For example where the legacy is stated to have been
given for the 'useful assistance' he received from the creditor; this indicates a contrary intention
and will be sufficient to rebut presumption of satisfaction.
(v) There is no presumption of satisfaction where the legacy is not of the same nature as the debt.
A bequest of the life use of a house and furniture could not be treated as a satisfaction of debt.
113
See Coates v. Coates (1898) 1 I.R. 258. In Barret v. Beckford (1750) 1 Yes. Sen. 519 at 521; 27
E.R. 1179, a testator who was under an obligation to pay an annuity of 300 per annum to his
aunt bequeathed the residue of his estate for the benefit of his mother and aunt for life. The Lord
Chancellor held that 'it is a general rule of satisfaction that the thing to be considered as a satisfaction should be exactly of the same nature and equally certain, here, it is not of the same nature'.
A devise of land would not be presumed to be a satisfaction of debt. But, suppose a testatordebtor devised land upon trust to sell with a direction that the proceeds be given to his creditor as
a beneficiary. In that case, there is conversion which becomes operative at the death of the testator, in which case the legacy is of the same nature as the debt. Nevertheless, on principle there
cannot be a presumption of satisfaction because the value of the legacy is uncertain at the time of
its creation, 'for whatsoever is to be a satisfaction of a debt, ought to be so in its creation and at
the very time it is given.' See Talbott v. Duke of Shrewsbury (supra) at 395. It would equally appear that there would be no presumption of satisfaction where the amount of debt due is uncertain.
(iv) Payment of Debt in the Lifetime of the testator: In that case the rule as to satisfaction does
not apply even if, but for the payment of the debt in the lifetime of the testator, the legacy would
have been held to be a satisfaction of the debt.
In Re Fletcher (1888) 38 Ch.D. 373 at 376, a testator at the date of his codicil owed his wife
625 and by his codicil he gave her that precise amount. North J., said 'I cannot imagine any reason for his giving that exact sum except to provide for the payment of the debt. Afterwards the
debt was paid off and the purpose for which the legacy was given, I am convinced, was satisfied.
The testator, having paid off the debt in his lifetime, his estate is relieved from the payment of
the legacy.' In such a case, the legacy is adeemed by the payment of the debt; the creditor is not
entitled to take it in that it was originally given in discharge of an obligation which existed before
the will was made but which had been subsequently discharged before the will became operative.
3.3 Satisfaction of Portion debts by legacies or by subsequent portions

Satisfaction (or Ademption) of Legacies by Portions: There is much similarity of circumstance between these two heads of satisfaction hence the traditional tendency of considering both
together. Both operate within a narrow area of the relationship between father and child or a
person in loco parentis and another. Both are premised on the rule that 'equality is equity' and
therefore lean against double portions. However, while the first head is a case of genuine satisfaction which presupposes an existing obligation intended to be satisfied, there is no such obligation in the second head; at best it can only be explained as an equitable devise to give effect
to the true intention of the testator, a common element to all cases of satisfaction.
For clarity, the two heads may be treated under the following subheads(a) Satisfaction of Portion-debt by Legacy:
The rule here is where a father or a person in loco parentis is under a covenant to provide a portion for a child and the father or the person in loco parentis subsequently gives a legacy to the
child, a presumption arises that the legacy was intended as a satisfaction of the portion-debt.
Equity is not in favour of the child or quasi-child claiming the legacy and at the same time insisting on enforcing his rights under the covenant. Where the legacy is equal to or greater than
the portion-debt, there is satisfaction in toto, but if the legacy is less valuable than the portion114
debt, there is satisfaction pro tanto. See Re Blundell (1906) 2 Ch. 222.
As Cotton, L.J. said in Montagu v. Earl of Sandwich (1886) 32 Ch.D. 525 at 534-535,
as between father and son the presumption arises that a father does not intend to give
double portions to his children; that is to say, if a father has made a provision by way of
covenant in favour of his child before the date of his will; then unless it appears upon the
will or by parol testimony ... that he intends to give the benefit conferred by will in addition to that which is already secured to the child by covenant, then the child will not take
both.
In Re Blundell (supra), Swinfen Eady J., held that the devise and bequest of one-third share of
the testator's residuary real and personal estate to his daughter operated as a satisfaction of the
testator's covenant in his daughter's marriage settlement.
(b) Satisfaction of Portion-Debts by Subsequent Portions: Where a father or a person in
loco parentis had agreed to give a portion to a child and subsequently makes some other
provision inter vivos which has the character of a portion, the second provision is deemed
to be a satisfaction either wholly or in part of the agreed or covenanted provision. In Lawes
v. Laes (1881) 20 Ch.D. 81, F bound himself by a bond to pay S, his natural son, 10,000 by
a named date. Before that date F took S into partnership as a result of which 19,000 credited to the partnership account would be owned by S as his share. Jessel M.R. held that
the rule against double portions applied and that the benefit given to S under the partnership articles must be taken in satisfaction of the sum due under the bond.
Satisfaction (or Ademption) of Legacy by Portion:
In this case, the rule has been clearly stated by Lord Selbourne L.C. in Re Pollock (1885) 28
Ch.D. 552 at 555:
When a testator gives a legacy to a child or to any other person towards whom he
has taken on himself parental obligations and afterwards makes a gift or enters into a
binding contract in his lifetime in favour of the same legatee, then (unless there be
distinctions between the nature and conditions of the two gifts) there is a presumption prima facie that both gifts were made to fulfill the same natural or moral obligation of providing for the legatee, and consequently, that the gift inter vivos is either
wholly or in part a substitution for, or an 'ademption' of the legacy.
If the amount of the subsequent gift is less than that of the legacy, the presumption does not go
beyond an ademption pro tanto. As Lord Cottenham explained in Pym v. Lockyer (1841) 5 My
& Cr. 29 at 34-35; 10 L.J. Ch. 153; 4 E.R. 283
all the decisions upon the question of double portions depend upon the declared or presumed intention of the donor. The presumption of equity is against double portions because it is not thought probable, when the object appears to be to make a provision; and
that object has been effected by one instrument that a repetition of it in a second should be
intended as an addition to the first. The second provision, therefore, is presumed to be intended as a substitution for, and not as an addition to that first given; but when the gift is a
mere bounty, there is no ground for raising any presumption of intention as to its amount
although such amount be comprised in two or more gifts.
In all the foregoing heads of satisfaction the common elements are; the relationship of father and
child (or a person in loco parentis) which relationship carries along with it a moral or natural
115
obligation on the part of the father or a person in loco parentis to provide portion for the child;
existence of circumstances in which the child is entitled to a portion and at the same time claiming another gift conferred upon him by his father or a person in loco parentis to him. In that case
the father is not to be presumed to have intended that the child should have both; equity leans
against double portion, and, provided the second gift (which might be inter vivos or under a
will) constitutes a portion, it is deemed to be a satisfaction of the child's prior entitlement. Then,
the important question, what is a portion?
3.2.1 What is a Portion?

It is natural for a father either in his lifetime or at different times or by will to make various
gifts to his child. This is to be expected in the context of the relationship existing between a father and a child or between a person in loco parentis and a quasi-child. However, not every
such gift is a portion, and yet it must be established that a gift is by way of portion before a
presumption of satisfaction can be sustained.
As to what is a portion, the authorities seem to have established that a portion is something given
by a father to his child with a view to establishing the child in life. See Taylor v. Taylor (1875)
L.R. 20 Eq. 155. Examples of gifts by way of portions include, marriage portion; money laid out
either for the training of the child into a profession or setting him up in business; paying for his
commission, paying for the goodwill of child's business and giving him stock-in-trade. As Romer J. stated in Re Lacon (1891) 2 Ch. 482, cases show that gifts of shares of residue, of shares
in partnership property and of real estate have been considered and treated as portions. Whether
or not a gift is to be regarded and treated as a portion depends on the intention of the donor
which may be drawn from the circumstances in which the gift was made. See Re Georges Will
Trust (1948) 2 All E.R. 1004 at 1009.
There is no difficulty where the purpose for which the gift is made is expressly stated, but where
in the absence of such evidence a father gives a large sum of money to a child in one payment,
the presumption is strengthened that the money is intended to start him in life or make a provision for him; but if it is a small amount that is so given, it requires strong evidence to show that it
is intended to be a portion. See Taylor v. Taylor (supra). However, there is presumption of a portion where the purpose for which the payment was made has been shown to be that which every
one would recognise as being for establishing the child or making a provision for the child.
It is not an overstatement that it is not every payment made or gift to a child that is to be regarded as advancement by way of portion. This point was emphasised by Jenkins J., in Re
Georges Will Trusts (supra), when he said, quoting the Master of Rolls in Re Vaux (1939) Ch. 465,
'when the words "portion' is used in reference to a gift inter vivos, it has a qualitative significance,
in this sense, that it is not every gift inter vivos that will cause the rule to come into operation.
Similarly, there may be various reasons why the testator should give property to a child. He may
wish to free him from some embarrassment, or something of that kind. In cases of that sort upon
the facts a gift may not be a portion at all, in which case, of course, the rule does not apply'. Re
George's Will Trust (supra) at 1008. In that case, the testator left substantial part of his residuary
estate to his son. Later he gave live and dead farm stock and assigned leases to the same child.
Jenkins J., held that a gift by a farmer to his son of live and dead stock with which to set up in
business as a farmer may be in the nature of a portion and in the absence of circumstances tending to show the contrary, would generally be regarded as such.
In Re Scott (1903) 1 Ch. 1, it was held that a sum expended by a father in paying his son's
debts is not necessarily an advance to the son by way of portion but may be regarded as a tem116
porary assistance. Casual or occasional gifts of no qualitative significance will not be regarded
as portions, neither would the aggregate of such gifts; 'the court has never added up small sums
in order to show that if the child claims those sums as well as the larger provision made for him
by the parent, he would be taking a double portion.' See Wigram V.C. in Suisse v. Lowther
(1843) 2 Hare 424, at 434, 67 E.R. 175; Re Peacock's Estate (172) L.R. 14 Eq. 236.
Where the father is a donee of a special or general power of appointment and he exercises it by
appointing the property to a child, the gift will be regarded as a portion just as much as if the
property were the father's own. In Re Peel (1911) 2 Ch. 165 at 170, a testator, who had a special
power under a marriage settlement to appoint certain funds, exercised it by will appointing it
among his seven children equally. Later, he exercised it by deed appointing a seventh share of
the funds to each of two of these children. Joyce J. held that the two children could not claim to
share in the appointment under the will. 'In popular language, the sums appointed by deed, as
also bequeathed by the will, are portions properly so called in legal language'; a portion incudes
a sum of money secured to a child out of property either coming from or settled upon its parents,
it does not cease to be a portion because it is given to all the children.
4.0
CONCLUSION
It is not every payment made or gift to a child that is to be regarded as advancement by way of
portion. Where the father is a donee of a special or general power of appointment and he exercises it by appointing the property to a child, the gift will be regarded as a portion just as much as
if the property were the father's own. Where a testator gives a legacy to his creditor without any
reference to the debt, such legacy will be presumed to be a satisfaction of the testator's indebtedness
to the donee.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit we have considered the doctrine of satisfaction. You should now be able to: define
satisfaction; explain satisfaction of debt by legacy and how legacy can be used to satisfy a legacy.
6.0
(i)
(ii)
7.0
What do you understand by portion? Expantiate.

Explain satisfaction of portion debt by legacies or by subsequent portions.
117
MODULE 3
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
UNIT 1
Equitable Remedies
Injunction
Specific performance
Rescission
Rectification, delivery up and cancellation of documents
INJUNCTION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
The position in Nigeria
3.2
Legally enforceable rights
3.3
Types of injunction
3.4
Damages in lieu of injunction
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In Modules 1 and 2, we considered a number of issues under the general principles of equity. In
this module 3, we will look at equitable remedies and particularly in this unit, we will consider
the remedy of injunction. Under the English legal system the award of a decree of injunction was,
for centuries, exclusive to the Chancery Court. The reason for this exclusive jurisdiction of
Chancery is to be found in the peculiar history of the English legal system whereby law and equity were, for a considerable length of time, administered in separate courts administering separate jurisdictions. The unpleasant situation resulting from the dual administration of justice led to
the merging (by series of enactments in the 19th century) of both jurisdictions into the Supreme
Court of Judicature.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Explain the remedy of injunction;

List the legally enforceable rights; and
Differentiate the types of injunction
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
The position in Nigeria
With regard to the award of injunction, the starting point for the merger was the Common Law
Procedure Act of 1854 which empowered the Common Law Courts to grant injunction in certain
cases; and finally the Judicature Acts, 1873-75 which abolished the old system of courts and in
its place, created the Supreme Court of Judicature with power to administer law and equity. By
118
the provisions of section 16 of the Act of 1873 the Supreme Court of Judicature was vested with
all the jurisdiction hitherto exercised by both the common law and the Chancery Courts. Section
25(8) of the Act specifically provides that 'the High Court may grant... an injunction ... by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do ...
either unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just.'
The above provisions did not materially affect the grant of an injunction by a Nigerian Court. Before and after the passing of the Act, there has always been one system of court administering
rules of law and of equity, although both the Supreme Court and the States High Courts are now
enjoined by the statutes to administer law and equity concurrently and in the same manner as
they are administered by Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England. Furthermore, section
16(b) of the Federal Supreme Court Act, 1960 empowered the Supreme Court to grant, in every
cause or matter pending before it, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the court
thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to
in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by them in the cause or matter.
Similarly, section 19 of the High Court of Lagos Ordinance empowered the High Court to grant
an injunction in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do. The
combined effect of the above provisions is to confer on both the Supreme Court and the High
Courts a wide discretion in the award of injunctions. The exercise of this discretion must, however, be consistent with what is reasonable and just in the circumstance. This means that the court
ought to be satisfied that the injunction which is being granted is as to its terms considering all
the circumstances of the case as affecting both parties, reasonable and just. See Leslie F. Tate v.
The Senior Immigration Officer (1962) L.L.R. 73, 76.
The jurisdiction of the court to grant injunction is not limited to any particular cause or matter. Contra
Lord Esher in North London Railway Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 30,
C.A. The court may exercise its jurisdiction in novel cases provided it is just and reasonable and that the
right sought to be protected is one recognised and enforceable either at law or in equity. The principle
with regard to injunction is that the court would grant an injunction for the protection of legally enforceable rights or the prevention of injury according to legal principles. See Martins Properties Ltd. V. Albert Anthony Coury (Unreported) Suit No. LD/690.1968 (Lagos High Court 24/ 3/69).
General Principles
Though the Nigerian legal system did not inherit the problem of dual jurisdiction it did inherit the general
principles regarding the grant of an injunction.
3.2
Legally Enforceable Rights
The grant of the remedy depends on the existence of a legally enforceable right. A plaintiff seeking the
remedy must first establish a right recognised and enforceable either at law or in equity. See Odunuwe v.
Uduaga (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 187; Onayemi v. Bouari (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 597; Gottschalk v.
Spruce (1956) 1 F.S.C. 42. In Adam v. Duke (1927) 8 N.L.R. 88 at 91, Webber J.. said 'I am ... unable
to find any substance in the statement of claim, nor can I find that any legal demand or claim was made
for subscriptions or tribute or contributions as alleged. On these findings there would appear to be no legal cause of action ... The claim for an injunction must fail. There is nothing to restrain, nor does any reason exist for an injunction. The court will not restrain the defendant from making assertions. There must
be a violation, a real and substantial violation of some right, before a court grants an injunction. As far as
I am to judge on the facts, it is difficult to understand what relief is sought in respect of any cause of action. I am unable to trace any cause of action; there seems to be an absence of such facts as would give rise
119
to an enforceable claim. What has been interfered with or even threatened'. See also Aileru v. Beinin
(1961) L.L.R. 45, 55.
It is now settled that the court will not grant an injunction where the plaintiff is unable to show an actionable wrong. The fact that the act of the defendant is injurious to the plaintiffs not sufficient so long as
such act does not constitute an infringement of a legally enforceable right (Day v. Brownrigg (1878) 10
Ch. D. 294; Webster v. Webster (1916) 1 K.B. 715) nor will injunction be granted where it has not
been clearly established that the defendant has infringed or threatened to infringe the plaintiff's right. See
Braide v. Adoki (1931) 10 N.L.R 15; Pattison v. Gilford (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 259.
In Wey v. L.E.D.B (1957) L.L.R. 20-21, the plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the
defendant from pulling down the houses of the plaintiffs and ejecting the plaintiffs or any occupier therefrom. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had threatened to pull down the plaintiffs' houses.
The remedy was refused on the ground that the allegations of threats were based on the bare
word of the plaintiffs unsupported by any other evidence. 'Even if the threats were made, it seems
to me that the demolition and forcible ejection are still only in prospect; It may be that, from their
observation of what has been going on around them, the plaintiffs think or anticipate that their
houses may be pulled. That is not enough. The mere prospect of injury does not give a right to
the relief asked for here and I am not satisfied that the injury, if it be done, is anything more than
in prospect at the moment.'
The fact that the nature or character of the right sought to be protected is tenuous is not a sufficient defence if it is established that there is an enforceable right which has been substantially
violated. In Umana v. Ewa (1923) 5. N.L.R. 25 at 28, the plaintiff who was a mere occupier of a
piece of land, brought an action for an injunction to restrain the defendant for an unlawful interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land. The trial court held that, as the plaintiff
and the persons whom he represented had been permitted by the owners of the land, whoever
they might be, to live on the land and to use the land for fanning and other purposes, they had acquired a right under native law and custom which the court must recognise and if necessary protect by injunction addressed to persons who without any lawful authority interfered With their
use and enjoyment of the land. On appeal, the defendant/appellant contended that as the plaintiff/respondent had not proved that the land belonged to the House of Family of which he was a
member and that even if he had proved it, he was not in a position to ask for a declaration to that
effect; therefore, he had not proved any right in the land in respect of which an injunction could
be granted.
Rejecting this contention, Combe, C.J. delivering the judgment of the court said 'Whether the
land is owned by the house of which he is a member or is owned by the Ntiero family the plaintiff has acquired a right under native law and custom to continue to use the land which he has
been permitted by the owners to use, without any unlawful interference, and if it is proved that
there has been a persistent unlawful interference with such use by a stranger the court would be
fully justified in granting an injunction to restrain such interference.' See further, Orku Sowa v.
Amachree (1933) 11 N.L.R. 83
Certainty of Rights to be Protected
The right sought to be protected by a decree of injunction must be clearly defined and ascertainable. See Karama v. Aselemi (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 150. In Cother v.Midland Railway Co. (1848) 2
P.R. 470 at 472; 41 E.R. 1025, Cottenham L.C., in the course of his judgment dissolving injunction granted by Vice-Chancellor said 'I think the right should be declared, and the injunction
120
founded upon such declaration that the order may inform the defendant what the opinion of the
court is as to the limits of his right, and not expose him, in the exercise of such right, to the consequences violating so vague an injunction.'
The court will grant an injunction only at the suit of a party having sufficient interest in the right
sought to be protected. See Maxwell v. Hogg (1867) 2 Ch. App. 307, 317: Akerele v. Awolowo
(1962) WN.L.R. A mere declaration of intention to do something without any further positive act
on the part of the declarant will not constitute sufficient right capable of being protected injunction. Though injunction is available in variety of cases, it will not be granted if the claim for it is
not put before the Court. However, where the court allows the plaintiff's claim to be amended by
adding a claim for an injunction and the court is entitled to allow such amendment, on the
amendment having been made, the injunction may be granted if the facts proved were such as to
justify the court in granting an injunction.
Injunction will not be granted in favour of a volunteer. In Akenzua II Oba of Benin v. Benin Divisional Council (1959) W.R.N.L.R. 1, the plaintiff, the Oba of Benin and President of the defendant
council, sought to recover damages for breach of contract, alleging that the council, having
granted to him a concessionary right to exploit timber exclusively in a certain area, withdrew the
right without cause and without notice. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed a declaration of
his rights, an injunction and damages.
The consideration for the alleged contract was founded in services alleged to have been rendered
by the plaintiff to the council by using his influence as Oba to secure the release by the United
Africa Company Limited, the holder of certain rights of exclusive exploitation of a larger area
including that in respect of which this action was brought. The defendant contended, inter alia,
that the plaintiff gave no consideration for the alleged contract and that being a volunteer and not
a purchaser for value, the plaintiff could not be granted equitable relief.
Thomas, J., found as a fact that the resolution of the council which the plaintiff alleged to have
given him the right claimed was never made before the areas in dispute were released by the
United Africa Company Ltd. nor was the promise by the plaintiff to get the areas released. His
Lordship observed that it was rather odd, in the circumstances of the case, that the plaintiff could
imagine that he would become a licensee in perpetuity of a very vast area of land within which to
exploit timber by the passing of the council's resolution, simpliciter, and without giving any valuable consideration whatsoever. It was, therefore, clear that the plaintiff had no enforceable contract, the claim for injunction was accordingly refused; the plaintiff being a volunteer and equity
will not assist a volunteer but a purchaser for value.
The remedy will not be granted where its effect will be valueless or ineffective. 'Equity like nature does nothing in vain.' See Eshugbayi Eleko v. Frank Morrish Baddeley (1925) 6 N.L.R. 65 and
Joshua Awopeju v. Madam Eleke CCHCJ/9172, 76.
3.3
Types of Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy granted by the court compelling a party to do or to refrain from
doing an act. The order is mandatory or positive where it compels a party to do an act; it is prohibitory or
restrictive where it prohibits the doing of an act. The various types of injunction are:
1.
Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
2.
Perpetual Injunction
3.
Interlocutory Injunction
121
4.
5.
Quia Timet Injunction

Exparte Injunction
Let us briefly consider each one.

Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
The essence of a mandatory injunction is to compel a party to restore things to the condition in which they
were at the time the plaintiff's complaint was made or before the defendant committed the act complained
of. See Isenberg v. East India House Co. (1863) 3 D.J. & S 263 at 272. 32 and Smith v. Smith
(1875) L.R 20 Eq. 500. For reasons of history and convenience, judicial attitude tends to favour the
grant of prohibitory rather than mandatory injunction. For a long period, most injunctions were (and still
are) prohibitory both in form and substance. The reason being that the remedy of injunction is essentially
restrictive.
Secondly it was much easier to restrain a party from doing an act than to compel him to perform a positive
act, since the Court of Equity will not grant a remedy, the enforcement of which will require the supervision of the court. Thus, the general restrictive character of injunction and the drastic effect of mandatory
injunction in particular favoured the disinclination of the court to grant mandatory injunction. If and
when it is granted, greater caution is exercised, and for a long period of time a mandatory injunction was always granted in negative terms when it was obvious that its effect was positive.
There is no longer any distinction in principle between granting a prohibitory injunction restraining a party from interfering with a right and granting a mandatory injunction in a positive term,
compelling a party to grant a right. See Davies v. Gas Light and Coke Co. (1909) 1 Ch. 708. The
merits of an injunction are the overriding consideration; whether an injunction is mandatory or
prohibitory in form or substance is of little significance provided the effect of the order does not
impose an impossible or unenforceable or unlawful obligation. See Pride of Derby v. British Celanese (1953) 1 Ch. 149, 181.
Buckley J. in Charington v. Simons & Co. Ltd. (1970) 1 W.L.R 725 at 730, stated the principles
governing the issue of a mandatory injunction. He said: 'the court must, take into consideration
amongst other relevant circumstances the benefit which the order will confer on the plaintiff and
the detriment which it will cause the defendant. A plaintiff should not, of course, be deprived of
relief to which he is justly entitled merely because it will be disadvantageous to the defendant.
On the other hand, he should not be permitted to insist on a form of relief which will confer no
appreciable benefit on himself and will be materially detrimental to the defendant.'

Define injunction.
Perpetual Injunction
Perpetual injunction is based on a final determination of the rights of the parties, and is intended
permanently to prevent infringement of a right, and obviate the necessity of bringing an action
after every such infringement. See Odunuwe v. Uduaga (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 187 at 188. The order does not necessarily last for ever contrary to what the description or terminology of the order
implies. It, however, settles permanently, the existing dispute between the parties being an order
that is made only after both parties to the dispute have been given the opportunity of being heard
122
and the merits and demerits of disputants contentions considered. The order is appropriate and
usually made to prevent a continuous infringement of a right and the continuous injury that flows
from such infringement. See Ojiako v. Ogueze (1962) 1 AllNLR 58.
It is equally appropriate in the application for quia timet injunction where the plaintiff shows a
genuine and reasonable fear that a violation of his right is threatened and that damages would not
be an adequate compensation for the imminent injury that would result from such infringement.
Furthermore, a perpetual injunction is granted in order to prevent multiplicity of suits. The court
prima facie would however not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which
damages are the proper remedy. See Martins Properties Ltd. V. Albert Anthony Coury (supra).
This is the very first principle of injunction law.
5.
4.
The award of the remedy is discretionary, though this discretion is not to be arbitrarily exercised. See
Adeyeye v. Adewoyin (1960) 5 F.S.C. 146. By and large, it is a settled principle that the award of
injunction is discretionary and that the exercise of this discretion must be guided by established
principles and practice having regard to the surrounding circumstances of each case. In the
process, various matters are taken into consideration. Such as (i) Temporary Nature of the Infringement
(ii) Minor Damage
(iii) Limited Owner
(iv) The Problem of Compliance
(v) Undertaking
Interlocutory Injunction
An application for an interlocutory injunction postulates that the applicant has a right, the violation of
which he seeks to prevent and in order to do so effectively to ensure at that stage of the proceedings that
the subject-matter of the right be maintained in status quo. Therefore, an interlocutory injunction is that
kind of equitable remedy which is only granted at the discretion of the court in order to nullify an actual
or anticipated alteration of the 'status quo' or to prevent the commission of some act or the taking of some
steps which will be impossible to reverse if done or taken. Interlocutory injunction is granted before the
final determination of the substantive issue between the parties. When granted, the effect may be mandatory or prohibitory.
See Duvin Pharmaceutical and Chemists Co. Ltd. v. Beneks Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Ltd. & 2
ors. (2008) 1-2 SC 68. Where the Supreme Court held that the issuance of order of Interlocutory Order is
at the discretion of a court which discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously and once an appellate court is satisfied that this principle of law has been met, it will hesitate to interfere with the exercise of such discretion by the trial court.
In Akinpelu v. Adegbore & 3 ors. (2008) 4-5 S.C. (pt.II) p. 75, the Supreme Court held that:
an application for an Interlocutory Injunction is procedurally between Interim Injunction and
Perpetual Injunction and is usually granted by the court pending the determination of the case. For
such an applicant to succeed the applicant must show as decided by the Supreme Court in Kotoye
v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 2 S.C. (Pt. 1) 1, (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.98) 419 that;
(a) There is a serious issue to be tried and that the applicant has a real possibility, not probability of success at the trial;
(b) The balance of convenience is on the applicants side;
(c) Damages cannot be an adequate compensation;
(d) The applicants conduct is not reprehensible e.g. that he is not guilty of delay;
123
(e) That the applicant has given satisfactory undertaking as to damages save in recognized exceptions.
In Kotoye v. CBN (supra), by a letter dated 14 April, 1987 to the Societe de Generale Bank by the
CBN, the CBN ordered certain steps to be taken and nullified certain decisions reached by the
bank. The said letter affected both the interests of the bank and those of some of its directors including the plaintiff. Consequently, on 22 April, 1987 the plaintiff filed an action in the Federal
High Court, Lagos against the CBN, Att-General of the Federation, Societe de Generale Bank,
challenging the directives contained in the letter of 14 April, 1987. On that same day (i.e 22
April, 1987), the plaintiff filed an exprte praying for an order:
(1) Restraining the first and second defendants and their servants/agents from in any way obstructing or frustrating the holding of the annual general meeting of the third defendant
bank until the final determination of this suit;
(2) For an order of injunction that until the pending of the suit, the defendants be restrained
from appointing or re-organising the appointment of any person(s) as director of the bank
other than such of them as are or may be duly appointed in accordance with the provisions
of the articles of association of the bank
No motion or notice was filed to the same effect. On the same day, the Federal High court
granted reliefs sought in the application and more. The first defendant (CBN) and the fourth defendant who later joined the suit appealed against the ruling on the exparte application to the
Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders. The plaintiff
thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court held that:
(1) An interlocutory injunction is one made pending the determination of a suit;
(2) An interim injunction is one granted to last until a named or definite or until further order
or pending the hearing of a motion on notice between the parties;
(3) An exparte injunction which is either interim or interlocutory is granted where there is a
real urgency and it is one of the inherent powers of a court of law for the enhancement of
the administration of justice;
(4) An interlocutory injunction being an injunction granted after due contest inter partes cannot be made unless there is an application on notice duly served on the other side and the
evidence for the determination of the application is by affidavit evidence.
The applicant must establish a probability or a strong prima facie case that he is entitled to the right of
whose violation he complains. See Kufeji v. Kogbe (1961) 1 All NLR 113; and Donmar Productions Ltd.
V. Barr & ors. (1967) 1 WLR 740, 742. It is not necessary that a plaintiff or applicant should make out a
case as he would on the merits, it being sufficient that he should establish that there is a substantial issue
to be tried at the hearing.
An interlocutory injunction will be granted to restrain an apprehended or threatened injury where
such injury is certain or very imminent, or mischief of an overwhelming nature is likely to be
done. See Mbonyi & Or. v. Dadzie (1940) 6 WACA 125. The remedy will not be granted when
the wrong which it is sought to restrain thereby is only in prospect. See E.O. Wey v. L.E.D.B.
(1957) L.L.R. 20. It is a settled law that an interlocutory injunction will not be granted when the
injury complained of can be fairly compensated in pecuniary damages. Thus the applicant must
show that he will suffer irreparable injury that which is not prevented by injunction cannot be afterwards compensated for by any decree which the court can pronounce in the result of the case.
See Akinlose v. A.IT. Ltd. (1961) W.N.L.R. 116; and Attorney-General v. Hallett (1847) 16 M. &
124
W. 569. Whether an injury complained of is irreparable or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. See Saunders v. Smith (1838) 3 My & Cr. 711 at 728.
Balance of Convenience is another important consideration in the granting or withholding an interlocutory injunction. Such consideration is predicated on the relative convenience or inconvenience to the parties of granting or withholding an injunction. See Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Bros. & Co. (1888) 38
Ch. 348, 362; and Ladunni v. Kukoyi (1972) 1 All N.L.R 133. Infact, the over-riding consideration
prescribed by law for granting of an interlocutory injunction apart from establishing that there is a matter
for determination is that the action must appear to the court to be just or convenient so to do. See Leslie
F. Tate v. Senior Immigration Officer (1962) L.L.R. 73, 76; and Ayo Arubi v. Ewere & Ors. (1971)
1 UILR 50, 52.
Thus, where the plaintiff has made out a probable case for ultimate relief or where the evidence leaves
this so much in doubt that the court must see there is a serious question of difficulty to try, then this matter of balance convenience becomes a paramount importance. See Ladunni v. Kukoyi (supra). At all
times the burden of a prima facie case and also the proof on balance of convenience, lies in favour of a person applying for injunction.
Since the jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction is equitable, the court must consider the
behaviour or conduct of the parties both before and at the time of the application and the decision
whether to grant the order sought must be related to actual and ascertained facts of the current
situation. Similarly, interlocutory injunction being an equitable relief, he who wants it must come
with clean hands. See Blakemore v. Glamoganshire Canal Navigation (1832) 1 My & K 154,
168. Interlocutory injunction may be prohibitory or mandatory although mandatory injunction is
rarely granted.
Quia Timet Injunction
This is a kind of injunction sought by a person to restrain the doing of an apprehended mischief.
Unlike perpetual and interlocutory injunctions which are sought to restrain infringement or alleged infringement of rights, a quia timet injunction is sought before the mischief is done. Thus
the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction is predicated on the fact that a person is entitled to take
action quia timet before he is actually injured. See Niger Chemists Ltd. v. Nigeria Chemists Ltd.
(1961) 1 All N.L.R. 171; See James L.J. in Hendricks v. Montagu (1881) 17 Ch.D. 638, 65 where
he said 'No doubt the application is an application quia timet, that is to say, it is to prevent something ... which is being threatened and intended - to prevent something which the defendant is
threatening and intending to do.'
Because of the drastic effect of injunction in general, and the fact that quia timet injunction is in
particular, meant to restrain an act that has not been done, courts are always wary and reluctant
to grant quia timet injunction. See Graigola Merthyr Company Ltd. v. Corporation of Swansea
(1929) A.C. 344; Crowder v. Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves 617; Emmanuel Ojo Wey v. L.E.D.B. (1957)
L.L.R. 20. Therefore, to succeed in an action for a quia timet injunction, the plaintiff must establish a clear and convincing evidence of probability of irreparable injury; or that injury must necessarily and inevitably follow if the apprehended or the threatened act is not restrained. See
Crowder v. Tinklerop.cit and Pattison v. Gilford (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 259.
Ex Parte Injunction
Normally, an applicant for an injunction must serve upon the defendant, a notice of the motion;
this is to avail the defendant an opportunity of preparing his defence, and of being heard. But in
125
certain cases, because of the urgency of the matter, which require speedy procedure, an ex parte
injunction (that is an injunction that is granted before the defendant has had time or opportunity
to defend or oppose the application and, or before the notice of the motion is served upon the defendant) may be granted. This type of injunction is granted for a very short period because it is
granted solely on the evidence produced by the applicant. See In re: F. R A. Williams (1962) 1
All N.L.R 324. The defendant is, however, expected to be served before the next motion day
when he would be expected to make a case for the discontinuance of the injunction before the
trial of the substantive action.
In Group Danone & Anor. V. Volvic (Nig.) Ltd. (2008) 3-4 S.C. 32, the Supreme Court held:
That it is inappropriate vide Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 539 at 554, to
have commenced contempt proceedings , against the respondent who have severally challenged the court on the validity of the ex-parte order for which it is being proceeded
against and when such legal challenge has not being resolved one way or the other.
That the circumstances whereby the respondent had to file the application for determination by the lower court, clearly constitute exceptional circumstances, as things stood before the trial court. The trial court was obliged in the circumstances, to have postponed the
hearing of the contempt application till after it would have disposed with Respondents
application before it for the discharge of its ex-parte order of injunction.
Damages in Lien of Injunction
It is settled law that if a plaintiff applies for an injunction to restrain a violation of a right, be it a
common law right or an equitable right, and if either the existence of the right or the fact of its
violation be disputed, the onus of establishing that right and its violation is on the plaintiff. But
once the onus is discharged, the plaintiff is, prima facie, entitled to an injunction to prevent the
recurrence of the violation. See Imperial Gas Light and Coke Company v. Broadbent (1859) 7
H.L. 600, 612.
From the time of the passing of Lord Cairn's Act in 1858, the jurisdiction to award damages in
addition to or in lieu of injunction has been given to the court. The exercise of this jurisdiction is
discretionary; it will not be exercised if the result of its exercise will tend to turn the court into a
tribunal for legalising wrongful acts; or where it will allow a wrong to continue simply because
the wrong-doer is able and willing to pay for the injury he may inflict. See Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Company (1895) 1 Ch. 287, 315.
In Maxwell Egbugara v. Nigerian Coal Corporation (2206) 4 FWLR pt. 345 p. 7396, the Court
of Appeal held that:
No order for interlocutory or interim injunction shall be made ex-parte or by motion on
notice except upon condition that the appellant gives a satisfactory undertaken as to damages. For the applicant to succeed, even if he has shown that he has a good case and that
the balance of convenience is on his side, he must show that damages cannot be an adequate compensation for his injury if he succeeds at the end of the day.
The case of Globe Fishing Industries Ltd. v. Coker (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.162) p.265 clearly distinguishes between perpetual, interlocutory and interim injunction. The court held:
(1) that the purpose of an application for an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the substantive suit is to keep the parties in status quo in which they were before
the judgement or act complained of;
(2) an injunction sought pending the determination of the substantive suit can only be in126
terlocutory and not interim as an interim injunction is one that can be discharged during
the pendency of the substantive action;
(3) an application for an interlocutory injunction is not the same as that for a perpetual injunction. Whereas a perpetual injunction can only be granted after a trial and the applicant
has established his right and an actual infringement of it, an interlocutory injunction is
granted pending the trial of the action in order to keep matters in status quo unti the issues
in controversy between the parties can be tried and determined.
The remedy of injunction is available in a variety of cases and for the protection of innumerable rights at
law and in equity.
4.0
CONCLUSION
The jurisdiction of the court to grant injunction is not limited to any particular cause or matter. The court
may exercise its jurisdiction in novel cases provided it is just and reasonable and that the right sought to
be protected is one recognised and enforceable either at law or in equity. The principle with regard to injunction is that the court would grant an injunction for the protection of legally enforceable rights or the
prevention of injury according to legal principles.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we studied the equitable remedy of injunction. We considered legally enforceable
rights, types of injunction and circumstances when damages can be awarded in lieu of injunction. You should now be able to: explain the remedy of injunction; list the legally enforceable
rights; and differentiate the types of injunction.
6.0
(i) Differentiate between mandatory and perpetual injunction.
(ii) When can damages be awarded in lieu of injunction?
7.0
127
UNIT 2
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Nature of the remedy
3.2
Discretionary nature of the remedy
3.3
Circumstances in which the remedy will be granted or refused
3.4
Doctrine of part performance
3.5
Grounds for refusal of the remedy
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we considered the equitable doctrine of injunction. In this unit, we will consider
another equitable remedy specific performance. The equitable doctrine of specific performance
is particularly important in the realm of the law of contract. The exercise of the jurisdiction to
grant the remedy dates back to the reign of Edward IV. See Story on Equity (3rd ed.) p.305. It
may be stated that the development of the remedy by the Chancery Court is, perhaps, one of the
earliest forays made by the court in its bid to provide a better and more remedial justice where
the remedy provided at common law was found defective or inadequate.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Describe the nature of the remedy;

List the circumstances in which the remedy will be granted or refused;
Explain the doctrine of part performance; and
List the grounds for refusal of the remedy.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Nature of the Remedy
There is no right, either at law or in equity, which permits a party to a contract to breach the contract, though the power to do so is not so much denied. However, whenever this power is exercised or resorted to by a contracting party, the attendant consequences at law may be different
from those in equity if it is a contract in which specific performance is the appropriate remedy.
At common law contract is a 'personal agreement' between two parties, and because of the personal nature and character of the relationship thus evolved, in the eyes of the common law, either
of the contracting parties may unilaterally decide to breach the contract. The only remedy provided at common law, for such course of conduct is payment of damages by the guilty party to
the innocent party. Whether damages are adequate for the wrongful act is not within the consideration of the common law.
128
On the contrary Courts of Equity deemed such a course in many instances inadequate for the
purposes of justice; and, considering it a violation of moral and equitable duties, they did not hesitate to interpose, and require from the conscience of the offending party a strict performance of
what he could not, without manifest wrong or fraud, refuse. Therefore, the position in equity is
that the court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, will in certain circumstances compel
parties to a contract freely entered into, to perform their obligations according to the terms of the
contract and to respect the sanctity of the contractual relationship created by their acts. If equity
had not interfered in this way, it would have been possible in many cases for parties to a contract
to buy off their duties under the contract to the detriment of innocent parties.
In Greene v. West Cheshire Rly. Co. (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. Cas. 44 at 50-51. James Bacon V. C. observed:
'The plaintiff has performed his part of the contract; the company have made and opened
their railway, and they now refused to perform the other part of that contract, by force of
which alone they acquired possession of the plaintiffs land. A more direct, wilful, and determined violation of a plain contract cannot be suggested. No excuse is offered for it, no
suggestion that it is impracticable, or even that it is inconvenient', for the company to perform their part of the contract of which the plaintiffhas performed his; but what they say
is, that the plaintiff may, by an action at law, recover against them in money such amount
of damages as a jury may think he has sustained by their wilful breach of their contract;
and that, therefore, a Court of Equity will not entertain his complaint. I do not understand
that the law, as administered in this court, countenances any such defence. If that were the law, the
great majority of the cases in which this court has exercised its authority for the purpose of compelling specific performance of contracts might be readily disposed of, because in the great majority of
cases a payment in money might satisfy the wrong which the breach of such contracts inflicts.'
Thus, specific performance is an order of the court by which a party to a contract is compelled to specifically
fulfil his obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. As will be seen below, the remedy shows
the extent of the power of equity to assist the common law, limited only by canons of common sense and the
practical limitations on the power to oversee and administer specific performance decrees. Per Lord Upjohn in Beswick v. Beswick (1967) 2 All E.R. 1197 at 1220.
The Question of Damages
Courts of equity do not profess to decree specific performance of contracts of every description. It is only
where the legal remedy is inadequate or defective that it becomes necessary for Courts of Equity to interfere.
See Flint v. Brandon (1803)8 Ves 159. Thus, the equitable remedy of specific performance was invented
to meet cases where the ordinary remedy by an action for damages is not an adequate compensation for
breach of contract. See Ryan v. Mutual Tontine Association (1893) 1 Ch. 126; Williams v. Smith &
Ors. (1948) 19 N.L.R. 21.
In Greene v. West Cheshire Rly. Co. (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 44, the court decreed specific performance of an
agreement although it was clear that the plaintiff had a concurrent remedy in damages. In Hutton v. Watling
(1948) Ch. 26, Jenkins J. observed that the jurisdiction to grant specific performance of a contract for the
sale of land is to be founded not on the equitable interest in the land whi9h the contract is regarded as conferring upon the purchaser, but on the simple ground that damages will not afford an adequate remedy.
There are certain classes of contracts which by statute, must be in writing otherwise, such contracts are
129
unenforceable and, therefore, no action for damages will lie at law for a breach of such contracts. But in
equity, specific performance of such contracts may be granted provided there is sufficient act of partperformance. Similarly, stipulation as to time in contracts provides another illustration where the common
law will recognize the right of a party to repudiate a contract or claim damages for its breach, but, on the
contrary, equity may grant specific performance of the same contract in favour of the other party to the
contract. At common law, time is of the essence of the contract. If a party to a contract fails to perform his
obligation under the contract within the time stipulated in the contract, the other party is entitled to repudiate the contract or claim damages; but in equity, time is not of essence of the contract and equity may
grant specific performance of the contract in favour of the party against whom an action for damages may
lie at law. Thus a guilty party at law may, in certain circumstances, be entitled to specific performance in
equity.
3.2
Discretionary nature of the remedy
Indeed, the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant specific performance if under
all the circumstances, it is just and equitable so to do. Per Lord Parker of Waddington in Stickney v.
Keeble (1915) A.C. 386 at 419. This brings out the discretionary nature of the remedy. As stated by Rigby L.J. in Scott v. Alvarez (1895) 2 Ch. 603 at 615 C.A, from the very first, when specific performance
was introduced it has been treated as a question of discretion whether it is better to interfere and give a remedy which the common law knows nothing at all about, or to leave the parties to their rights in a court of
law.
Unlike the common law remedies, specific performance cannot be claimed as of right; this is true
of the early development of equity jurisdiction but, for a long time now, the correctness of the
statement is no longer absolute. In many cases, the circumstances and the rules under which specific performance will be decreed are so well established that the court, exercising equitable jurisdiction, cannot afford to exercise any inconsistent judicial discretion. See Behnke v. Bede
Shipping Co. (1927) 1 K.B. 649. In Smith v. Colbourne (1914) 2 Ch. 533 at 541, it was argued
that specific performance should not be granted in respect of a contract for the sale of certain
building because the title was too doubtful to be forced upon the purchaser. Cozens-Hardy, M.R
observed that the courts have in modern times not listened with favour to such a defence. 'It is
the duty of the court, unless in very exceptional circumstances, to decide the rights between the
vendor and the purchaser, even though a third person not a party to the action will not be bound
by the decisions'.
In general, the exercise of the jurisdiction is still subject to the overriding inherent discretion of
the court which must be judiciously exercised.
3.3
Circumstances in which the remedy will be granted or refused
The remedy is available in a variety of contractual relationships; whether or not it will be granted
depends on the nature and character of the contract, its subject-matter and other numerous but
varying factors which the Courts of Equity have established purposely to ensure that the exercise
of the jurisdiction meets with the requirements of rational justice and fair-play.
1.
Existence of Valid Contract
The grant of the remedy presupposes a valid contract; where this is non-existent the remedy will
not be granted. See Geore Mitchell v. Sherriff J. Charaff (1942) 8 W.A.C.A. 99, 102. In Tella v.
Akere (1959) W.N.L.R. 26, it was clear from the evidence before the court that the alleged contract for the sale of land, for which specific performance was being sought, did not in fact exist.
130
Similarly in Savage v. Uwechia (1961) 1 All E.R. 830, the Privy Council allowed the appeal
against the decision of Federal Supreme Court granting specific performance of a contract on the
ground that the agreement upon which the order of specific performance was based was not sufficient to constitute a contract for the sale of land. See further, Bansedun v. Iyabo (1962) 2 All
N.L.R. 7.
.
Neither will the court grant specific performance of a contract whose terms are inconclusive, uncertain or ambiguous. See Bansedun v. Iyabo (supra); Johnson v. Humphrey (1946) 1 All E.R. 460.
For, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to make a contract for parties. See Stimpson v.
Gray (1929) 1 Ch. 629. However, where the alleged inconclusiveness or uncertainty can be understood by reference to the context of the agreement, specific performance of the agreement
may be granted. See Jojo v. Cole (1939) 5 WACA 99.
In Ohiaeri v. Yussuf & Ors. (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) p. 207, the court held that:
An action for specific performance arises once there exists a contract coupled with circumstances
which make it equitable to grant a decree of same. A contract for the sale of land attracts a greater
justification for a decree of specific performance because as opposed to other types of contract, the
land may have a special and peculiar value to the purchaser. In the instant case, the 1st and 2nd respondents had every justification to claim for specific performance.
2.
Illegality
Equity will not decree specific performance of a contract that is void for illegality. Here, equity
follows the law. In Canfailla v. Chahin (1939) 5 W.A.C.A 104, the West African Court of Appeal
held that a contract to erect a building contravening the provisions of a legal enactment was illegal and could not be enforced. Nor will the court decree specific performance of a contract that
affects adversely the public morality or general policy of the law of the land. See further Stevens v.
Gourley (1859) 7 C.B. (N.S.) 99; 141 E.R 752; Barclays Bank D.C.O. v. Hassan (1961) All NLR. 836;
Corbett v. S.E. & Chatham Rly. (1906) 2. Ch. 12.
It must be noted that where a party claiming specific performance relies on a document or memorandum which is merely unenforceable but not illegal, such unenforceability is not a bar to a decree of specific performance unless the invalidity or unenforceability is pleaded by the defendant.
See Barclays Bank D.C.O. v. Hassan (supra) at 840. But where document is void for illegality the court
will refuse to give effect to it although illegality has not been pleaded; the court cannot close its
eyes to a transaction if it is illegal. See Banwo v. A. G. Leventis (1960) L. L. R. 78, 86.
3.
Consideration
Since equity will not assist a volunteer, want of consideration is a complete bar to a decree of
specific performance. See Kuri v. Kuri (1923) 4 N.L.R. 78. As Lord Hardwicke stated in Penn
v. Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves. Ser 444, 'the court never decrees specifically without a consideration.' Consideration is an essential requirement for the validity of a simple contract, absence of
it renders such contract void at law and in equity. See Savage v. Uwechia (1961) I All E. R.
830, 832, P.C. Here, equity follows the law and will not grant a decree for specific performance. Even where the contract is under seal, being a voluntary contract, specific performance
will not be decreed and parties will be left to their legal remedies. See
Earl of Aylesford v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App 484, 490.
It is a settled rule of equity that inadequacy of consideration is not a bar action for specific performance although equity regards a gross inadequacy of consideration as an indication that the
parties were not at arms' length. See Earl of Aylesford v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App 484,
131
490. Earlier authorities tended to accept the view that inadequacy of consideration is a ground
for refusing specific performance. However, Lord Eldon in Coles v. Trecothick (1804) 9 Ves.
234, 236 and the House of Lords in Callaghan v. Callaghan (1841) 8 Ch. & Fin. 374, laid
down the rule that before inadequacy of consideration could operate as a bar, the inadequacy
must be so great as to prove or constitute evidence of fraud or that the consideration is so grossly inadequate as to lead to the inference that the parties could not have intended to execute the
contract. Such circumstances could also raise a presumption of undue influence, a branch of
equitable fraud, as to render enforcement of the contract inequitable.
In Mia Sons Ltd. v. Afrotec (1991) 5 MWLR (Pt. 194) p.724, it was held that a collateral contract for which valuable consideration has been given and which is different, distinct and severable from a main contract between the parties, is one on which the court can make an order of
specific performance.

List the circumstances in which the remedy of specific performance will be granted or refused.
3.4
Doctrine of Part Performance
At law, certain contracts are required to be in writing; non-compliance with this requirement
renders such contracts unenforceable. However, equity takes a more flexible view and will enforce a contract within this class by an order of specific performance, if the contract is one to
which the equitable doctrine of part-performance applies. The exercise of this jurisdiction provides an illustration for the maxim that 'equity looks at the intent rather than the form.'
Section 67(1) of the Property and Conveyancing Law (Western Nigeria), 1959 provides that 'no
action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest
in land unless the agreement upon which such action is brought or some memorandum or note
thereof is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or by some other person thereunto by
him lawfully authorised.' Section 67(2) of the Law recognises the existence of the doctrine of
part-performance by providing that 'this section applies to contracts whether made before or after
the commencement of this law and does not affect the law relating to part performance, or sales
by the court.'
The above provision in 'form' and substance is a re-enactment of Section 4, Statute of Frauds
1677 (an English Statute of general application, applicable in Nigeria, except in the Western and
the Mid-western States). The Lagos State has similar provision in Section 5 of the Law Reform
(Contracts) Act, 1961. It is evident, from the above statutory requirements that a contract relating
to sale of land or to the disposition of any interest in land is not enforceable at law by either party
to the contract unless the contract is evidenced in writing.
The effect of non-compliance with the statutory requirement is not to avoid the contract. In
1883, Lord Blackburn in Maddison v. Alderson (1883) 8 App. Cas. 467 at 488 said: 'It is now
finally settled that the true construction of the Statute of Frauds is not to render the contracts
within it void, still less illegal but is to render the kind of evidence required indispensable when
it is sought to enforce the contract.' In the same case, Lord Selbourne observed as follows: 'it has
been determined at law (and in this respect there can be no difference between law and equity)
132
that the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds does not avoid parol contracts but only bars the legal
remedies by which they might otherwise be enforced. The object of the statute is to prevent the
fraudulent setting-up of pretended agreements, and then supporting them by perjury.' See Story
on Equity (3rd ed.) p.317.
To this extent, equity follows the law, and regards itself as bound by the provisions of the statute. But at the same time equity will not allow the statute to be used as an engine for fraud;
therefore, in certain cases equity would decree specific performance of a contract for the sale or
other disposition of interest in land, even if the contract is not in writing as required by the statute provided there is sufficient act of part-performance. For, it is possible for two parties to have
freely entered into an oral agreement for the sale of land, and for one of the parties to rely on the
statute as a defence if and when called upon to perform his own part of the contract.
Application of the Doctrine
A party relying on the doctrine of part performance must plead such facts and circumstances
which will bring his case within it and must show by oral testimony or otherwise that the acts
alleged by him amount in law to part performance. Before the application of the doctrine the following well-established conditions must be satisfied.
(i) The acts of part performance must be unequivocally and exclusively referable to, and denote
the existence of, the alleged tract. See the following cases: Maddison v. Alderson (1883) 8 App.
Cas. 467 at 475; Rawlinson v. Ames (1925) Ch. 96; and Wusamotu Shelle v. Kaletu Rossek
(1938) 14 N.L.R. 80.
(ii) The Acts must be such as to render it a fraud in the Defendant to take advantage of the contract not being in writing. Much as equity follows the law it will not allow a statute designed to
prevent fraud to be used as an instrument for fraud. However, the act of part-performance relied
upon must show the equities arising from the relationship of the parties subsequent to the contract and that if specific performance of the oral contract is not granted, such equities will render
it a fraud in the defendant to take advantage of the contract not being in writing. The equities
arise not out of the contract itself but out of the altered position caused by the acts of the parties
done in execution of the contract. See Maddison v. Alderson (supra) at 475; Chaproniere v. Lambert (1917) Ch. D. 356 at 359.
(iii) The contract to which the Acts of Part Performance denote must be capable of
being enforced by a decree of specific Performance
This condition exemplifies the limit of equitable remedy of specific performance in general and
that of the doctrine of part-performance in particular. The doctrine of part performance is confined to contracts relating to disposition of land or interest in land. It has no application either to
contract of service or contract of guarantee; such contracts are not capable of being specifically
performed and equity does not act in vain. See Britain v. Rossiter (1879) 11 Q.B.D. 123; and Apara
v. United Africa Company Ltd. (1951) 20 N.L.R. 17.
(iv) The parol evidence which is let in by the act of Part Performance must establish a finally
concluded contract
The equities resulting from the acts of part performance done in execution of the oral contract
are the factors compelling the court to decree specific performance of the contract; therefore,
such acts of part performance upon which the equities are premised, must let in proper parol evi133
dence of a concluded contract for which specific performance is sought. See Maddison v. Alderson (supra) at 475. The parol agreement need not set out the terms so long as the minds of the
parties are at one upon matters which are essential and are cardinal to every agreement in relation to land.' See Adefarasin, J. in African Coastal Shipping Service Ltd v. Nigerian ports Authority (supra). However, the parties must have gone beyond the stage negotiation. See Rossiter
v. Miller (1878) 3 App. cas. 1124; and Marshall v. Berridge (1881) L.R. 19 Ch.D. 233.
(v) The Act of Part Performance relied upon must have been done by the plaintiff and not by the
defendant. See Caton v. Caton (1865) L.R. 1 Ch. app. 137. In Ekpanya v. Akpan (1989) 2 NWLR
(Pt. 101) p. 86, it was held that the basis of the doctrine is that the plaintiff having altered his position on the faith of the contract, acquires an equity against the defendant. Thus, the partperformance must be by the plaintiff. Therefore, for the plaintiff to rely on part-performance, he
must have been allowed to alter his position for the worse by carrying out acts in performance of
the contract. Equity will then come to his aid arising from the changed position.
3.5
Grounds for refusal of the Remedy
There are certain contracts whose performance will not be compelled by a decree of specific performance. This is not because the court lacks jurisdiction to award the decree in these cases, but
because the contracts by their nature are not enforceable by a decree of specific performance.
Contracts falling within this class are those whose performance or execution requires the court's
constant and continuous supervision; thus, imposing too great a burden upon the court if the court
is to ensure that compliance with its orders is not stultified. Therefore, the court will not ordinarily decree specific performance of a contract the prosecution of which it cannot supervise. See
Blackett v. Bates (1865) L.R. 1 Ch. 124; Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co. v. TaffVale Railway
Col. (1874) L.R. 9 Ch. 331.
Thus, specific performance will not be granted in contracts involving the construction of a railway, the management of a brewery, the management of a colliery or the construction of a waterway; or any contract of similar nature. See Wheatley v. Westminster Brynibo Coal Co. (1869) 9
Eq. Cas. 538 at 552. Generally, specific performance will not be granted in the following cases.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Contract to build
Contracts of personal service
Contracts determinable at will
Contracts to refer to arbitration
Contracts specifically enforceable only in part
Contracts relating to real and personal property
Contracts lacking in mutuality
Misrepresentation and mistake
Misdescription
Compensation and condition of sale
Lapse of time
Unclean hands
Hardship
See the case of Ohiwerei v. Okosun (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 832) p.463 where it held as follows:
1.
Specific performance is a decree issued by a court which compels a contracting party to
do that which he has promised to do. It is a remedy for breach of contract provided by equity to
meet those cases where the common law remedy of damages is inadequate.
134
2.
The equitable doctrine of specific performance is discretionary because the dominant principle has always been that equity will only grant if under all circumstances, it is just and equitable to do so. The remedy is available in a variety of contractual relationships. Whether or not it
will be granted depends on the nature of the contract. Before the remedy of specific performance
can be granted, there must be a valid contract. The court will not grant specific performance on a
contract whose terms are inconclusive, uncertain or ambiguous. Also, a court will not decree specific performance of a contract that is void for illegality. Where no consideration is furnished,
specific performance of the contract will not be granted.
3.
A court cannot decree specific performance until a contract would form the basis of the
decree of specific performance.
4.
The doctrine of part-performance will only apply upon fulfilment of the following conditions:
(a)
The act of part performance must be definite and refer exclusively to and denote
the existence of the alleged contract.
(b)
The act must be such as to render it a fraud on the part of the defendent to take advantage of the contract not being in writing.
(c)
The contract to which the acts of part performance denote must be capable of being
enforced by a decree of specific performance.
(d)
The parol evidence which is let in by the act of part performance must establish a
finally concluded contract.
(e)
The act of part performance relied upon must have been done by the plaintiff and
not by the defendant.
5.
Under the doctrine of part-paerfoemance, a party who has partly performed a contract can
enforce it, notwithstanding the fact that there is no written evidence of the contract. The doctrine
is based on the principle that the plaintiff having altered his position on the faith of the contract,
acquires an equity against the defendant. Thus, part performance must be by the plaintiff. Therefore, for the plaintiff to rely on part-performance, he must have been allowed to alter his position
for the worse by carrying out acts in performance of the contract. Equity will now come to his
aid, arising from his changed position.
4.0
CONCLUSION
The position in equity is that the court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, will in certain
circumstances, compel parties to a contract freely entered into, to perform their obligations according to the terms of the contract and to respect the sanctity of the contractual relationship
created by their acts. If equity had not interfered in this way, it would have been possible in many
cases for parties to a contract to buy off their duties under the contract to the detriment of innocent parties.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we looked at the remedy of specific performance. You should now be able to: describe the nature of the remedy; list the circumstances in which the remedy will be granted or refused; explain the doctrine of part performance; and list the grounds for refusal of the remedy.
6.0
What do you understand by the doctrine of part performance?
135
7.0
UNIT 3
RESCISSION
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Act of a party or a judicial remedy
3.2
Grounds for rescission
3.3
Loss of the right to rescind
3.4
Consequence of rescission
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we considered the equitable remedy of specific performance. In this unit, we will
look at the rescission of contract. Where a contract is voidable, but not void, such a contract is
valid until rescinded. The right to rescind, which may arise in certain circumstances, is exercised
where a party to a contract expresses by word or act in an unequivocal manner, that he is no
longer willing or that he refuses to be bound by the contract. That course of conduct or action, if
justified by the circumstances or by the facts of the case, puts an end to the contract and restores
the parties as between them, to the position in which they were before the contract was entered
into. The full effect of rescission, therefore, is to treat the contract as though it had never been
entered into.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Determine whether rescission can be be accomplished by the act of a party;

List the grounds for rescission;
Determine the instances when the right to rescind is lost; and
Explain the consequence of rescission.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Act of a party or a judicial remedy

136
Resitutio in integrum is a fundamental feature of the remedy of rescission; where this is not possible, the right cannot be validly exercised. Therefore, where the circumstances of the case impose
upon a party desiring to rescind the duty of making resitutio in integrum, until he discharges that
duty rescission cannot be accomplished. See the following cases:
1. Clough v. London and North Western Rly. Co. (1871) L.R. 7. Exch. 26.
2. Abram Steamship Co. v. Westville Shipping Co. (1923) A.C. 773.
3. Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1218,1278.
4. Newbigging v. Adams (1886) 34 Ch.D. 582 at 592.
It is a settled law that a contract cannot be rescinded by one party for the default of the other unless both can be put in status quo as before the contract. See Hunt v. Silk (1804) 5 East, 449. In
Blackburn v. Smith (1848) 2 Ex. 783, 792, there was a contract for the sale of a piece of land between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff, having paid a deposit, went into possession.
He later gave notice to rescind the contract on the ground of certain events which had occurred
and brought an action to recover his deposit. Parke, B. delivering the judgment of the Court said
that inasmuch as the plaintiff had or retained the possession of the property the parties could not
be placed in status quo and, therefore, the action for the recovery of the deposit could not be
maintained. Thus the fact of possession of the land by the plaintiff, made impossible for the act
of rescission to have its natural effect.
If rescission can be accomplished by the act of a party, the question as to whether the right to rescind is in fact a judicial remedy becomes relevant. Surely the assistance of a court of equity is
dispensed with where the act of rescission is not challenged by the other party to the contract. But
a different situation may arise where for example there remain some question to be settled as between the parties such as taking account of property which might have passed between them with
a view to restoring the parties to status quo as before the contract, or where the other party to the
contract challenges the right of the first to rescind. See Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co.
(supra) at 1278.
In such cases, the assistance of a court of equity becomes indispensable; it would have to decide
whether the act of rescission relied upon was in itself effect. Nevertheless, 'it is an entire mistake
to suppose that it is this verdict which by itself terminates the contract and restores the antecedent
status. The verdict is merely the judicial determination of the fact that the expression by the
plaintiff of his election to rescind was justified, was effective; and put an end to the contract. See
Abram Steamship Co. v. Westville Shipping Co. (supra) at 781. See further, Reese River Silver
Mining Co. v. Smith (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 64. 73; Oakes v. Turquand (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 325.
3.2
Grounds for Rescission
1.
Mistake:
Where the two parties laboured under a common or mutual mistake, rescission may be
granted. Lindley, L.J. said: in Huddersfield Banking Co. v. Henry Lister & Son (1895) 2
Ch. 273 at 281, 'An agreement founded upon a common mistake, which mistake is impliedly treated as a consideration which must exist in order to bring the agreement into
operation, can be set aside, formally if necessary, or treated as set aside and as invalid
without any process or proceedings to do so.'
In Solle v. Butcher (1950) 1 K.B. 671 at 693 C.A, the Court of Appeal held that a contract is
liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either
as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided tha the misapprehension
137
was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault. See
Lord Westbury in Cooper v. Phibbs (1867) L.R 2 H.L. 149, 170. In Abraham v. Oluwa (1944)
17 N.L.R. 123 at 126, the plaintiff at the time he purchased the property was labouring under the
mistaken idea that he had either a defective title or no title at all. Similarly, the defendant possessed the mistaken idea that the property belonged to the judgement creditor. In an action
brought by the plaintiff to recover the purchase money which he had paid to the defendant,
Banker J. said: 'if parties enter into an agreement with reference to a supposed actual state of
things does not in fact subsist, the consideration for the agreement fails and the agreement is
consequently void.
The principle is that equity would relieve a party from the consequences of his own mistake, so
long as it could do so without injustice to third parties. This is, however, on the supposition that
the mistake renders the contract void ab initio and a mistake which renders a contract not void,
but voidable. The position seems to be that contracts will be void for mistake if the mistake is
such as to prevent the formation of any contract at all. See Solle v. Butcher (supra) at 690-692. It
is, however, clear that rescission will be granted for mutual mistake whether the mistake be one
of fact or one of law.
2.
Misrepresentation:
A contract that is induced by a material misrepresentation made either fraudulently or innocently cannot stand; such misrepresentation is a ground for rescission.
(a) Fraudulent Misrepresentation:
There is fraudulent misrepresentation when it is shown that a false representation has been made
knowingly and intentionally or without belief in its truth or recklessly without caring whether it
is true or false and with the intention that the other party should act on it and has been so acted
upon by the other party. At law and in equity such misrepresentation renders the contract induced
by it voidable. See the following cases:
Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337.
Peek v. Gurney (1873) L.R. 6 H.L. 377.
Horsfall v. Thomas (1862) 1 H. & C. 90; Smith v. Chadwick (1884) 9 App. Cas. 187 at 196.
In Sule v. Aromire (1951) 20 N.L.R 20 at 21-22, the defendant put up for sale by auction a piece
of land and the poster advertising the sale mentioned that the defendant had obtained a court
judgment in respect of the land. The defendant went further to give the plaintiff a copy of the
judgment which showed that the plaintiff was the owner. But in truth, the judgment did not relate
to the piece ofland. The plaintiff, having bought the land on the strength of the misrepresentation
made to him by the defendant, made unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession; he therefore
brought this action claiming annulment of the conveyance and damages. The court agreed with
the submission of the defendant that where there has been a. conveyance no rescission is possible
unless there has been fraud. However, the court rejected the submission that the defendant had
hidden nothing and that the principle caveat emptor applies. The principle is that if the plaintiff
had acted on the faith of a false representation made to him by the defendant, it is no defence for
the latter that the plaintiff might have found out the truth if he had made enquiry. See Redgrave v.
Hurd (1881) 20 Ch.D. 1.
The court found that the defendant knowingly made a false representation which was a material
one and it was designed to, and did put the plaintiff off his guard and that the fraudulent misrepresentation entitled the plaintiff to annul the sale and a refund of the purchase price. It is sufficient if a coursc of action or conduct satisfies the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation; the
138
motive for making such misrepresentation is completely irrelevant. See Pasley v. Freeman (1739)
3 T.R. 51; Polhill v. Walter (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 114.
(b) Innocent Misrepresentation:
Though innocent misrepresentation cannot support an action at law for damages26 it is, in equity,
a ground for rescission. See Derry v. Peek (supra); Newbigging v. Adam (1886) 34 Ch.D. 582; Heilbit Symons & Co. v. Buckleton (1913) AC. 30 at 49. Where rescission of a contract is claimed on
the ground of innocent misrepresentation it is sufficient if the plaintiff can prove that there was
misrepresentation which induced him to enter into the contract. However, honestly, such misrepresentation might have been made and however free from blame the person who made it, the
contract having been obtained by misrepresentation cannot stand. See Redgrave v. Hurd (1881) 20
Ch.D. 1 at 12; Derry v. Peek (supra); Low v. Bouverie (1891) 3 Ch.D.82 at 100. The Court of Equity has power to set aside contracts whenever the court is of the opinion that it would be unconscientious for a party to avail himself of a legal advantage which he had obtained. See Torrance v. Bolton (1872) L.R. 8 Ch. 118, 124; see generally, the recent changes made in the
law of England by the Misrepresentation Act, 1967.
3.
Mere silence and Non-Disclosure:
A party to a contract is generally not under a duty to make any disclosure regarding the transaction unless where non-disclosure may amount to misrepresentation of material facts capable of
inducing the other party to enter into the contract or where the circumstances of the particular
transaction impose a duty to make disclosure. In Oakes v. Turquand (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 325 at
342, the court held that where a person has been, by the fraudulent misrepresentations of directors of a
company or by their fraudulent concealment of facts, drawn into a contract to purchase shares in the company the directors cannot enforce the contract against him but he may rescind it. In that case Lord
Chelmsford said: 'it is said that everything which is stated in the prospectus is literally true and so it is, but
the objection to it is not that it does not state the truth as far as it goes, but that it conceals most material
facts with which the public ought to have been made acquainted, the very concealment of which gives to
the truth which is told, the character of falsehood.
Secondly, non-disclosure in contracts uberrimae fidei is a ground for rescission of such contracts.
This class of contracts includes contracts of insurance of all kinds, family settlements or arrangements. A party to a contract of this class is under a duty to make full disclosure of all facts within
his knowledge; there must not only be good faith and honest intention, but also full disclosure;
and without full disclosure, honest intention is not sufficient. See Harvey v. Cooke (1827) 4
Russ. 34 at 53; 38 E.R. 717, 725. Thus, a transaction purported to be family arrangement was
set aside on the ground that the doubts existing as to the rights alleged to compromised by the
transaction were not presented to the party interested.
In Gordon v. Gordon (1821) 3 Swans. 400; 36 E.R. 910, there was an agreement between two
brothers as to the division of an estate. The younger brother had obtained an advantage because
of the erroneous belief that the elder brother was illegitimate, when in truth the younger brother
knew all along that his elder brother was legitimate which fact he failed to disclose. The agreement was later set aside when it became known that the elder brother was legitimate and that the
younger brother knew of the true position.
What is required however is full disclosure; the court is not concerned with the attendant consequences of such disclosure. Thus an agreement of compromise, the very object of which is to
avoid the necessity of having the exact relative legal rights determined by litigation, and which
was entered into after the parties have had full consultation with the family solicitor, will not be
139
set aside even though the agreement may not be quite in accordance with the right of parties.
What is essential is that there should be no fraud or improper conduct on the part of the party or
parties under a duty to make full disclosure. But where full disclosure is required as to the exact
legal rights and the person under a duty to make such disclosure concealed the facts because he
thinks that it is for the advantage of all parties to compromise, and that if they knew their exact
rights there would be no chance of compromise, the court will set aside a compromise which
proceeded on that basis, since the very object of the compromise is to ascertain what the respective legal rights of the parties are. See See Roberts v. Roberts (1905) 1 Ch. 704, 710,
771.
4.
Constructive Fraud
Constructive fraud consists of a variety of unconscientious conduct which, if made use of to induce a party to enter into a transaction, may constitute a ground for rescinding such transaction.
Undue influence is a common example of constructive fraud. There is undue influence when the
will of a party coerced into a transaction which he does not desire to enter into. See Wingrove v.
Wingrove (1885) 11 P.O. 81; Johnson & Or. v. Maja & Or. (1951) 13 W.A.CA 290, 295. If the
party has only been persuaded or induced by consideration which may be condemned or disapproved, this may not amount to undue influence, if the party is not coerced into doing that which
he does not desire to do; thus undue influence is an influence exercised either by coercion or
fraud. See Boyse v. Rossborough (1856-57) 6 H.L.C. 1 at 48-49; 10 E.R 1192.
The onus of proof lies on the person who alleges undue influence. See Johnson v. Maja (1951) 13
WAC.A. 290; Johnson v. Aderemi (1955) 13 WACA 297, P.C. To discharge this onus, it would
not be sufficient merely to establish that a person has the power to unduly coerce a party to enter
into a transaction; it is also necessary to prove that in the particular case that power was exercised, and that it was by means of the exercise of that power that the transaction which the plaintiff sought to rescind has been produced. See Wingrove v. Wingrove (1885) 11 P.O. 81.
However, if certain relationships, such as a doctor and patient, solicitor and client, etc., existed at
the time of the transactions, such relationship creates a presumption of undue influence and the
onus is upon the defendant to rebut such presumption. In Johnson v. Williams (1935) 2 W.A.C.A.
248 at 250, a deed of conveyance in which certain property was conveyed by a patient to her
medical adviser was set aside on the ground that it was obtained from her by undue influence
arising from the fact that the defendant was her medical adviser. Strother Stewart, J. said that
such relationship creates a presumption of undue influence, and the onus is upon the defendant to
rebut such presumption.
In Taylor v. Brew (1942) 2 W.A.C.A. 201; Cf. Erhumwunse v. Omoregbe (1961) W.N.L.R 301,
305, a trust deed by which property was to be conveyed to the settlor's father and solicitor was set aside on
the ground that the deed was executed whilst the settlor was unduly under the influence of her parent/solicitor and with that influence operating on her mind (at the time) she executed the trust deed.
5.
Misdescription:
The right to rescind is an appropriate remedy where one of the parties to the contract has misdescribed property, the subject matter of the contract. However, misdescription that would sustain
an action for rescission must be substantial. In Smith v. Land and House Property Corporation
(1884) 28, Ch.D. 7 at 13, the plaintiffs put up an hotel for sale stating in the particulars that it
was let to 'F, a most desirable tenant, at a rental of 400 for an unexpired term of 27years.' The
defendants entered into the contract of sale in reliance upon these particulars. But the truth of the
matter was that the tenant did not pay his rent properly. When this became known, the defendant
140
refused to complete. In a counter claim by the defendant for rescission. Baggaly, L.J. said that it
is material representation for the vendors to describe a tenant who did not pay his rent properly
as a very desirable tenant.
In Sodipo v. Coker (1932) 11 N.L.R. 138, the plaintiff purchased certain land at an auction sale
held by the defendant who had described the land as about 50 acres whereas it measured 22.2
acres in reality. The plaintiff brought an action to set aside the sale on the ground of the defendant's misdescription of the extent of the land. Kingdom, C.J. took the view that the misdescription was in a material and substantial point and that it was calculated to deceive and it did deceive the purchaser. He therefore held that the plaintiff was entitled to have the sale set aside on the
ground of misdescription.
6.
Conditional Terms in Contract:
It is not unusual for parties to a contract to include in the terms of the contract a provision empowering either of the parties to rescind the contract on the occurrence of certain
events. Prima facie, the right to rescind becomes exercisable on the occurrence of the stipulated
events; but the courts have placed some limttation on the exercise of this right purposely to prevent fraudulent and arbitrary exercise of the right. Thus a condition giving a vendor the right to
rescind in the event of his willingness to comply with an objection to the title is not to be considered as giving the vendor an arbitrary power to rescind the contract. See In re Jackson and hadens Contract (1906) 1 Ch.D. 412, 420.
Before he can lawfully exercise that power, he must establish to the satisfaction of the court,
some reasonable grounds for his unwillingness to meet the purchaser's objection; for instance,
that compliance with the objection would involve him in litigation and expenses far beyond what
he ever contemplated, (see Duddell v. Simpson (1866) L.R. 2 Ch. 102.) or that at the time the
contract of sale was entered into, the vendor reasonably and honestly, though erroneously, believed that he was or that he should be in a position to make a complete title to the property he
purported to sell. In addition, the conduct of the vendor in the transaction must not have fallen
below that of a prudent man of business, having regard to his contractual relations with other persons. See Re Jackson and Haden s Contract (supra) at 421.
As Collins M.R. stated in Re Jackson and Haden s Contract (supra) at 422, in all cases in which
the vendor was allowed to avail himself of such condition, nothing in the nature of recklessness or
dishonesty must be imputed to him. Thus, where knowing the exact facts, the vendor has recklessly made a description of them which would mislead another person who did not know as
much as himself (even though he thought that person might know as much as himself), there is a
clear failure of duty on the part of the vendor which fairly disentitles him to say that a clause introduced to meet a reckless disregard by the vendor of his duty as to accuracy of statement when
he is making a statement with a view to other people acting on it as correct.
In re Des Reaux and Setchfield s Contract (1926) Ch.D. 178 at 189-190, the vendor knew at the
time he entered into the contract, that he had no title to the property and did not avail himself the
opportunity of taking advice from a competent legal adviser as to the title to the property. When
he was required to take certain steps that would put him in a position to make title in favour of
the purchaser, he refused and decided to rescind the contract under the conditions of sale. Romer,
J. held that the vendor was reckless in entering into the contract, and moreover, the vendor's unwillingness to comply with the requisition being unreasonable and arbitrary disentitled him the
benefit of the conditions of sale. See also Re Deighton and Harris s Contract (1898) 1 Ch.D.
458. Where Lindley L.J. held that the ordinary condition of sale giving the power of rescission
141
applies only where the vendor has some title and not where he has none.
A vendor's power under the terms of the contract to rescind the contract may be exercised only in
good faith and with promptitude and must not be used as an engine for fraud. Thus, where a
vendor having such power under the contract took advantage of it for purposes of delay while he
opened negotiations, unknown to the purchaser for a better bargain with a third person, thus
putting the purchaser in an uncertain position, the court held that by his conduct he deprived
himself of his election to affirm the contract and the purchaser was entitled to treat the contract
as rescinded. See Smith v. Wallace (1895) 1 Ch.D. 385.
In all cases, the vendor must do his best to comply with the obligations which by contract he has
undertaken towards the purchaser; the vendor would not be allowed to ride off upon a condition
to rescind which was obviously not framed with reference to the circumstances under which.the
vendor claims to exercise the power. See Re Des Reaux and Setchfields Contract (1926) Ch.D.
178 at 190; and Rigby L.J. in Re Deighton and Harriss Contract (supra).
Enumerate the grounds for rescission of a contract.
3.3
Loss of the Right to Rescind
The right to rescind is not indefeasible, and therefore, it may be lost in certain circumstances.
1.
Affirmation of the Contract and Acquiescence:
Where there are circumstances upon which a party to a contract may rescind or avoid the contract and those circumstances are known to the party, the contract continues to be valid till the
party has determined his election by avoiding the contract. See Clough v. London and N.W. Rly.
Co. (1871) L.R. 7 Ex. Ch. 26, 34. But if it can be shown that he has at any time after notice of
these circumstances either by express words or by unequivocal acts, affirmed the contract, then
his election has been determined for ever and can no longer avoid the contract. Since the party
has the right to elect either way, he may keep the question open so long as he does nothing to affirm the contract. However, lapse of time without rescinding the contract will furnish evidence of
acquiescence and that he has elected to affirm the contract. Furthermore, when the lapse of time
is great, it would, in practice, be treated as conclusive evidence to show that he has affirmed the
contract. See Denning, L.J. in Leaf v. Intemational Galleries (1950) 2 KB. 86, 91.
The length of time that would constitute a conclusive evidence of affirmation may depend on the
nature of the contract. See Senanayake v. Cheng (1965) 3 All E.R. 296. In a contract for the sale
of goods, lapse of a reasonable time will be a bar to rescission. For instance, where five years
have elapsed without any notice of rejection, the buyer cannot claim to rescind. See Leaf v.
1ntemational Galleries (supra) 2 K.B. 86, 90-91. In the case of repudiating shares in a company,
the shareholder must act with promptitude; he must have done more than mere repudiation as is
the case in ordinary voidable contracts; he must ensure that his name is removed from the register of the company before the commencement of winding up.See Re Scottish petroleum Co.
(1883) 23 Ch.D. 414 at 437; First National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Greenfield (1921)2 K.B. 260. It has
been held that a delay of a fortnight in repudiating the shares makes it doubtful whether the repudiation in the case of a going concern would have been in time. See Re Scottish Petroleum Co.
(supra) at 234. Except where investigation is necessary to enable the shareholder to be fully informed, he ought to lose no time in repudiating.
142
The right to rescind may also be lost where the party entitled to the right does any act that is inconsistent with avoiding the contract. In Taiwo v. Princewill (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 240, the defendant had refused to complete a building under a building contract with the plaintiff on the
ground that the plaintiff, contrary to the building contract had failed to make certain payments to
him. It was, however, shown in evidence that the defendant later continued to work and received
some payments from the plaintiff. Affirming the decision of the trial court, the Federal Supreme
Court held that because the defendant had later continued with the work and accepted further installments under the contract, he had lost the right to repudiate the contract for failure on the
plaintiff's part to pay the agreed sum though he retained the right to recover the sum due by action. See further, Erhumwunse v. Omoregbe (1961) W.N.L.R. 301, 305.
2.
Impossibility of Restitutio in Integrum:
It is a settled principle of general justice that rescission will not be granted where the parties
cannot be restored into their original state before the contract. See Blackburn v. Smith (1848) 2
Ex. 783, 792. See also Lord Blackburn in Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate (1878) 3 App.
Cas. 1218, 1278. Thus, where a contract is voidable at the option of a party, it follows that
when that party exercises his option to rescind the contract, he must be in a state to rescind, that
is, he must be in such a situation as to be able to put the parties into their pre-contract position.
See Clarke v. Dickson (1858) E.B. & E. 148 cited with approval by the Privy Council in Urquhart v.
Macpherson (1878) 3 App, Cas. 831, 838; Western Bank of Scot. v. Addie (1867) LoR 1 Sc. &
Div. 145 at 164.
As Lord Blackburn observed in Erlanger s case (supra) at 1278, 'it would be obviously unjust
that a person who has been in possession of property under the contract which he seeks to repudiate should be allowed to throw that back on the other party's hands without accounting for
any benefit he may have derived from the use of the property, or if the property, though not destroyed, has been in the interval deteriorated, without making compensation for that deterioration.'
If a contract cannot be rescinded in toto it cannot be rescinded at all; the reason for not directing
rescission in such a case is that the parties, or one of them, cannot be restored to their status quo.
See Thorpe v. Facey (1949) Ch. 649, 664; Hunt v. Silk (1804) 5 East. 449. Thus, a plaintiff who
has taken the whole benefit of a contract so far as it was beneficial to him, without at any time
attempting to repudiate it, would not be allowed to rescind one particular part of the contract for
it would be impossible to restore the defendant to his pre-contract position. See Urquhart v.
Macpherson (supra).
However, it would appear that the doctrine of restitutio in integrum may not be applied literally
since the larger basis of the doctrine is to maintain fairness and justice between the parties; thus,
the practice had always been for a court of equity to grant the relief of rescission whenever by
the exercise of its powers, it could do what is practically just, though it cannot restore the parties
precisely to the state they were in before the contract. See Erlanger.v. New Sombrero Phosphate
Co. (supra) at 1278-1279.
In Spence v. Crawford (1939) 3 All E.R 271 at 283, repayment of the price of shares, the subject-matter of the contract, with interest was held to satisfy the doctrine of restitutio in integrum,
as what is ordered to be restored is fair and just and substantially identical to the subject-matter
of the contract. This flexible approach to the application of the doctrine is, however, limited to
cases where rescission is the result of innocent misrepresentation and not where there is proof of
143
fraud. See Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate (1899) 2 Ch. 392, at pp. 456-57; Adam v.
Newbigging (1888) 13 App. Cas. 308.
3.
Completion of Contract:
Generally, completion of a contract constitutes a bar to the relief of rescission. A court of equity
will not grant rescission of an executed lease on the ground of innocent misrepresentation. See
Brownlie v. Campbell (1880) L.R. 5 App. Cas. 925; Long v. Lloyd (1958) 7 W.L.R. 753, 756. The
lessee would have gone into possession under the lease and nothing remained to be done and
therefore there is nothing to rescind. See Darling, J. in Angel v. Jay (1911) 1 K.B. 666 at 672.
As Carey, J. said in Bada v. The Premier Thrift Society (1938) 14 N.L.R. 20 at 83, because the
contract must have been merged in the conveyance and therefore there is no longer anything to
rescind, there is no existing executory contract or transaction which is binding on the parties; the court
does not make unnecessary orders nor rescind what is non-existent. The position is the same where there
had been a part execution of an agreement; for, the contract could no longer be rescinded in toto arid the
parties placed in their pre-contract position. See Spence v. Crawford (1939) 3 All E.R 271, 290.
Completion of contract is a bar to rescission only where the contract is voidable for misrepresentation that
is not fraudulent. See Long v. Lloyd (supra);Brownlie v. Campbell (1880) L.R 5 App. Cas. 925.
Lord Campbell stated the general position in Wilde v. Gibson (1848) 1 HL.C. 605 at 632-633; 9 E.R
897, where he said: 'in the court below the distinction between a bill to set aside a conveyance that had
been executed has not been distinctly borne in mind; with regard to the first, if there be misrepresentation
or concealment which is material to the purchaser a court of equity will not compel him to complete the
purchase; but where the conveyance has been executed.. a court of equity will set aside the conveyance
only on the ground of actual fraud; and there would be no safety for the transaction of mankind if, upon
discovery being made at any distance of time of a material fact not disclosed to the purchase of which the
vendor had merely constructive notice, a conveyance which had been executed could be set aside.' See
also, Seddon v. North Eastern Salt Co. (1905) 1 Ch. 326.
Therefore, proof of actual knowledge of a defect, amounting to fraud, is essential before an executed contract could be set aside. But there seems to be an exception in contracts for the taking of shares in companies. Even though the shares have been allotted and the shareholder's name has been placed on the company's register, it is not necessary for a shareholder who desires to avoid the contract to take shares to
prove fraud; it is enough if he proves a misrepresentation of fact. See First National Reinsurance Co.
v. Greenfield (1921) 2 K.B. 260 at 272.
4.
Acquisition of Rights by Third Parties:
The right to rescind is lost where third parties have, bona fide and for value acquired rights or interests
under the contract. Where the party entitled to rescind has made no election he retains the right to determine the contract either way. This is, however, subject to the important condition that if in the interval
whilst he is deliberating, an innocent third party has acquired an interest in the subject matter of the contract, or if as a result of his delay the position even of the wrongdoer in relation to the subject-matter is
affected, such will preclude him from exercising his right to rescind. See Clough v. London and North
Western railway Co. (1871) 7 Ex. Ch. 26, 35.
Thus, where a contract to purchase shares in a company has been induced by fraud, the defrauded purchaser cannot rescind after the commencement of the winding up of the company, since the creditors of
the company have, thereby bonafide, acquired an interest in the shares of the company. See Oakes v.
144
Turquand (1867) L.R 2 H.L. 325.

A person who derives title to the subject-matter of the contract from the wrongdoer takes subject to the
right of third parties. Therefore, a trustee of goods which have been obtained by the purchaser under a
contract that is voidable acquired the property subject to the rights of third parties. One of these rights is
the right of the defrauded vendor of the goods to disaffirm the contract and to retake the possession of the goods. See In re Eastgate, Ex parte Ward (1905) 1 K.B. 465, 467. See further, Tilley
v. Bowinan Ltd. (1910) 1 K.B. 745, 758.
3.4
Consequence of Rescission
The condition for granting the relief is that the parties, as between them, be restored to their precontract position. Therefore, where the relief is granted, the contract is no longer in existence,
thus the question of claiming damages for its breach does not arise since the full effect of rescission is to treat the contract as if it had never been entered into. As was stated by Romer, J. in
Barber v. Wolfe (1945) Ch. 187 at 189-190, where a party entitled to rescind elects that course of
action, he cannot at the same time obtain damages for a breach of the contract which he is asking
the court to rescind. See further Henry v. Schroder (1879) 12 Ch. 666, 667; Hall v. Burnell
(1911) 2 Ch. 551.
4.0
CONCLUSION
It is a settled law that a contract cannot be rescinded by one party for the default of the other
unless both can be put in status quo as before the contract. Where the relief of rescission is
granted, the contract is no longer in existence, thus the question of claiming damages for its
breach does not arise since the full effect of rescission is to treat the contract as if it had never
been entered into.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the remedy of rescission. You should now be able to: determine
whether rescission can be accomplished by the act of a party; list the grounds for rescission; determine the instances when the right to rescind is lost; and explain the consequence of rescission.
6.0
The right to rescind is not indefeasible. Discuss.
7.0
145
UNIT 4
RECTIFICATION, DELIVERY UP AND CANCELLATION OF

DOCUMENTS
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Scope and Nature of the Remedy
3.2
Grounds for Rectification
3.3
When the remedy will be refused
3.4
Deliveryup and cancellation of documents
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit we considered rescission. In this unit we will look at rectification, delivery
up and cancellation of documents. Sometimes there is variance between the agreed intention of
the parties to a transaction and the document or instrument that is intended to give expression to
the agreed intention; in such a case, the equitable remedy of rectification is proper and is often
resorted to since the sole purpose of the relief is to make the written instrument conform with the
true and agreed intention of the parties to the transaction. Thus rectification is an equitable remedy to correct a verbal error in a written instrument so as to make it conform with the previously
agreed intention of the parties.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Describe the scope and Nature of the Remedy;
(ii) Enumerate the grounds for Rectification;
(iii) Explain the situations when the remedy will be refused; and
(iv) Explain Deliveryup and cancellation of documents.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Scope and Nature of the Remedy
In Lavell Christmas Ltd. v. Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 85, Cozen-Hardy M.R observed that the essence of rectification is to bring the docunent which was expressed and intended to be in pursuance of a prior agreement into harmony with that prior agreement. The remedy presupposes an
antecedent contract; also there must be proof that by common mistake of the parties the final
completed instrument as executed fails to give proper effect to the antecedent contract.
The remedy is available to rectify various kinds of instruments provided the conditions necessary for its grant are satisfied. No doubt, it covers various conveyancing documents. In White v.
White (1872) L.R. 15 Eq. 247, an executed conveyance purported to convey a moiety only of
146
real estate when the agreed intention of parties was to pass the whole estate. Bacon, V.C. ordered that the deed of conveyance he rectified so as to conform with the agreed intention of the
parties. Documents or instruments relating to leasehold agreements, building contracts, various
kinds of insurance policies, bills of exchange may be proper subject-matter for rectification. So
is marriage settlement.
See the following cases:
Murray v. Parker (1854) 19 Beav. 305; Oyadiran v. Baggett (1962) L.L.R. 96; Roberts & Co.
Ltd. v. L.C.C. (1961) Ch. 555; Motteux v. London Assurance Co. (1739) 1 Atk. 545; Collett v.
Morrison (1851) 9 Hare 162; Spalding v. Crocker (1897) 2 Comm. Cas. 189; and Druiff v.Parker
(1868) L.R. 5 Eq. 131 at 139.
Thus, in Welman v. Welman (1880) 15 Ch.D. 570 at 578-579, Malins, V.C. stated that it is the
rule of the court that where a marriage settlement or any other contract is in an improper form
and not in accordance with the intention of the parties, then the intention of the parties would be
carried out by putting the instrument into that form which will effectuate the intention. See further Wollaston v. Tribe (1869) L.R. Eq. 44.
However, a will is not a proper subject-matter for rectification unless there is fraud. See Collins
v. Elstone (1893) P.1 at 4. Thus where a testator employs another to convey his meaning in technical language, and that other person makes a mistake in doing it, the mistake is the same as if
the testator had employed that technical language, equitable remedy of rectification will not be
available to correct the error. Similarly, the court has no justification to rectify articles of association of a company, even if those articles do not accord with what is proved to have been the
concurrent intention of all the signatories therein, at the moment of signature.See Scott v. Scott
(1940) Ch. 794 at 801-802. Incorporation of a company is governed and regulated by substitute;
once the statutory requirements are complied with and the company is duly registered by the registrar, a court of equity has no power to rectify the memorandum and articles of association of
the company.
The articles and memorandum of the company had thereby acquired a statutory effect and can
only be rectified by statutory authority. See Evans. v. Chapman (1902) 86 L.T. 381 at 382. The
equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant rectification is strictly limited to harmonisation of the
written instrument, which is intended to give expression to the contract, with the previouslyagreed intention of the parties to the contract; it does not include power to alter the intentions of
the parties or to make a new contract for them.
Thus, in Mackenzie v. Coulson (1869) L.R. 8 Eq. 368 at 375. James V.C. stressed the point that
Courts of equity do not rectify contracts; they may and do rectify instruments purporting to have
been made in pursuance of the terms of contracts. It is, therefore, necessary for a plaintiff seeking rectification to show that there was an actually concluded contract antecedent to the instrument which is sought to be rectified; and that such contract inaccurately represented in the instruments. In F.E. Rose Ltd. v. Wm. H Pim Ltd. (1953) 2 AllE.R. 739 at 375, although there was a
mutual mistake as to the meaning of the words used in describing the subject-matter of the contract, there was no doubt that the written contract correctly expressed the oral agreement antecedent to the contract. In that case, the contract could not be rectified since rectification is concerned with contracts and documents, and not with intentions.
Thus a mistake in the terms of the agreement will not be rectified if the mistake is intended by
the parties to the agreement. Where a vendor and a purchaser agreed that certain property should
147
be the subject-matter of a contract of sale and the property is so accurately described by the deed
of transfer, there will be no rectification if it happened that the parties had entered into the contract of sale on the common though erroneous supposition that the property was much larger and
valuable than it turned out to be. The deed have conveyed what the parties intended. Misdescription of the subject-matter of a contract may be a ground for rescission but will not support an action for rectification. The sole purpose of rectification is to correct verbal errors in the document
which is intended to give expression to the true intention of the parties; it is not to rectify the intention or make new contracts for the parties. Therefore, the common intention of the parties at
the moment of execution is the controlling factor and not what would have been their intent if,
when they executed it, the results of what they did had been present in their minds. See Tucker v.
Bennett (1888) 38 Ch. 1 at 16.
3.2
Grounds for Rectification
(i)
Existence of a Finally-Concluded Contract:
A fundamental requirement for the grant of the remedy is that the plaintiff must establish a finally concluded contract antecedent to the instrument which is sought to be rectified. Where
such agreement is non-existence, rectification will not be granted. In Mackenzie v. Coulson
(supra), a claim for rectification, founded upon a slip which did not form part of the alleged
concluded contract, was rejected on the ground that the slip did not amount to more than terms
of negotiation or mere talk between the parties which usually preceded agreements. Thus, Dening, L.J. stated in Rose v. Pim (supra) at 747, that in oder to get rectification, it is necessary to
show that the parties were in complete agreement on the term of their contract, but by an error,
wrote them down wrongly.
The antecedent agreement need not be a legally enforceable contract. See Shipley U.D.C. v.
Bradford Corporation (1936) Ch. 375, 395. The fact that.the antecedent agreentnt is oral when
it is required by law to be in writing is not sufficient bar to a claim for rectification, if the existence of the oral agreement is established. See Craddock v. Hunt (1923) Ch. 136; United States
v. Motor Trucks Ltd. (1924) A.C. 196; Johnson v. Bragge (1901) 1 Ch. 28. Equity is concerned
with the intention and not with the form. Thus where parties who can be bound only by their
respective seals have altered into an antecedent agreement not under seal, the subsequent document which is intended to record the antecedent agreement but failed by mutual mistake to
record it will be rectified so as to conform with the antecedent agreement notwithstanding that
the antecedent agreement is not legally enforceeable. See Shipley U.D.C. v. Bradford Corporation (supra).
It is, however, vital to prove prior agreement as mere intention will not suffice. Nor will mere
steps taken in the course of negotiation suffice. Similarly, there can be no rectification in equity if the only ageement which is proved is that which is contained in or evidenced by the document as executed. See Lovell and Christmas Ltd. v. Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 85, 88.
(ii) Common Mistake:
The exercise of the jurisdiction depends on proof of common mistake of the parties in recording
their antecedent agreement. As Romilly, M.R. stated in Murray v. Parker (1854) 19 Beav. 305 at
308, in matters of mistake, the court undoubtedly has jurisdiction. Though this jurisdiction is to
be exercised with great caution and care, it still has to be exercised in all cases where an instrument as executed is not according to real agreement between the parties. But in order to justify
the court in reforming an executed deed, it must appear that there has been a mistake common to
both the contracting parties and that the agreement has been carried into effect by the deed in a
148
manner contrary to the intention of both. Therefore, if the antecedent contract is reasonably ascertained and that contract is, by a common mistake wrongly expressed in the document signed
by the parties, then the court can rectify the document so as to be in harmony with the antecedent
contract. See Rose v. Pim (supra) at 347.
(iii) Continuing Intention of the Parties:
The concurrent intention of the parties must remain unaltered up till the moment of execution of
the document which must have been intended to effect the antecedent agreement. However, the
concurrent intention of the parties at the time of execution is the contract to which the document
sought to be rectified is to be made to conform. Therefore, it is to this intention of the parties at
the moment of execution that the attention of the court will be directed. See Cozens-Hardy J. in
Johnson v. Bragge (1901) 1 Ch. 28.
The parties may, by agreement but before the execution of the contract, alter their position as regards the contract; provided the altered position forms part of their concurrent intention (which
was intended to be carried out by the executed document but which had been given wrong expression to the concurrent intention), rectification will be granted. In Gilhespie. v. Burdis (1943)
769 L.T. 91 at 92, the court stated that in order to establish the claim for rectification it must be
shown beyond all reasonable doubt that up till the moment of execution, of the agreement, it was
the common intention of the parties that something should find a place in the agreement which is
not there as expressed by the agreement.
In order to ascertain what the concurrent intentions of the parties were, the court must look at the
intention of the parties at the time when the instrument sought to be rectified was executed. See
Tacker v. Bennett (1888) 38 Ch. 1 at 16. In all cases, the concurrent intention or the real agreement of the parties must be established by evidence whether parol or written. See Murray v.
Parker (1854) 19 Beav. 305; Lovell mid Christmas v. Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 85 at 88 where Cozens hardy, M.R. said that evidence of what took place prior to the execution of the antecedent
agreement is admissible and essential.
In the process, the court will look at the parties' outward acts, i.e. at what they said or wrote to
one another in coming to their agreement, and then compare it with the document which they
have signed. If you can predicate with certainty what their contract was, and that it is, by a common mistake, wrongly expressed in the documents, then you rectify the document. But nothing
else will suffice. See Denning, L.J. in Rose v. Pim (supra) at 747.
Thus, in Oyadiran v. Baggett (1962) L.L.R. 96 at 100, the plaintiff brought an action to have a
sub-lease to which he was a party rectified so as to give effect to what he alleged was the true
contract between him and the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of a mistake common to both parties an agreed covenant by the defendant to build a factory to be used for the
manufacture of footwear and to develop the rest of the land (the subject-matter of the sub-lease)
into industrial units similar to the industrial estate at Yaba was omitted in the deed of the sublease which they both signed. The defendant denied the allegation. Bellamy, J. admitted and considered parol and written evidence of what transpired between the parties before the deed was
executed. He found that up to the moment of the execution of the deed it was the common intention of the parties that the covenant should find a place in the deed but because of a fundamental
mistake, common to them both, the deed as executed did not express the covenant. He, therefore,
directed that the deed of sub-lease in question should be rectified so as to conform with the
common intention of the parties.
In Olubowale v. Manliki (1971) 1 U.I.L.R. 145, where rectification was refused on the ground
149
that the written instrument sought to be rectified was never the act of the two parties and therefore, there could be no common mistake between the two parties to give rise to rectification,
Adefarasin, J. said: 'For rectification to be ordered it must be shown by clear and unambiguous
evidence not only that the document does not accurately represent the true agreement between
the parties at the time of its execution but that the proposed alterations do accord with their intentions at the time. See Evershed, M.R. in Whiteside v. Whiteside (1950) Ch. 65 at 76. It is essential that the instrument, as rectified, should put the parties in the same position vis-a-vis each other as they intended.
(iv) Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof is on the party seeking rectification and a clear and high standard of proof is
required in rectification cases. See Fowler v. Fowler (1859) 4 De G. & J. 250, 265; Oyadiran v.
Baggett (1962) L.L.R. 96, 97. In Crane v. Hegeman-Harris Co. Inc. (1939) 1 All E.R. 662 at
664, Simonds J. said that it is a jurisdiction which is to be exercised only upon convincing proof
that the concluded instrument does not represent the common intention of the parties. On appeal
Greene, M.R. reiterated the high degree of conviction which unquestionably is to be insisted
upon in cases of rectification.
The basis for this requirement is that parol evidence is being admitted to vary a written instrument: rectification may be granted solely on parol evidence contrary to the rule that oral evidence
is not generally admissible to vary a written instrument. See Murray v. Parker (1854) 19 Beav.
305, 308. Thus, situations in which a written agreement granting a lease may be rectified so as to
conform with an antecedent oral lease contrary to the rule that oral evidence is not generally admissible to vary a written instrument. Thus, situations in which a written agreement granting a
lease may be rectified so as to conform with an antecedent oral lease certainly require a strict
proof of the prior oral lease. See Cowen v. Truefitt Ltd. (1899) 2 Ch. 309; Lovell and Christmas
Co. v. Wall (1911) 104 L.T. 85.
(v)
Mistake of Law:
A common mistake that will sustain an action for rectification must be of facts and not
of law. As Chelmsford, L.C. said in Midland G.W. Rly. v. Johnson (1858) 6 H.L.C. 798;
10 E.R. 1509 at 1514, mistake is undoubtedly one of the grounds for equitable interference and
relief; it must, however, be mistake not in matters of law but a mistake of facts. For example,
construction of contracts is clearly a matter of law, if, therefore, a party acts upon a mistaken
view of his rights under a contract, he is no more entitled to relief in equity than he would be at
law. Therefore, where the common mistake is to the legal effect or consequences of the contract
rectification will not be granted. Ignorance of law is no excuse.
Thus, rectification will not be granted, where owing to the common mistake of the parties as to
the general law applicable to the transaction, the agreed terms of the contract operate differently
from what the parties intended. Napier v. William (1911) 1 Ch. 361 at 367, Warrington, J. stated
that where a lease is drawn in accordance with the intention of the parties, its defect arising from
a mistake as to its legal effect will not be a ground for rectification. A document is to be rectified
so as to conform with the intention of the parties at the time when it was executed and not what
would have been their intent if, when they executed it, the effect of what they did had been
present to their minds. See Tucker v. Bennett (supra).
However, it appears that rectification may be granted where the mistake arose from the legal effect of the language or words used; the parties must have intended the same legal effect but that
150
they used words or language whose legal effect did not conform with their intent. See Whiteside
v. Whiteside (1950) Ch. 65,674; See further, Burroughes v. Abbott (1922) 1 Ch. 86; Jervis v.
Howle and Talke Colliery Co. (1937) Ch. 67.
(vi) Unilateral Mistake:
The general rule is that rectification will not be granted for a unilateral mistake. See Fowler v.
Fowler (1859) 4 De G. & 1. 250; Kerr on Fraud and Mistake (2nd ed.) p. 498. There is unilateral
mistake where the plaintiff is mistaken and the defendant is wholly and completely innocent. The
true intention of one of the parties was to do one thing, and he by mistake has signed an agreement to do another. Thus, if the owner of two adjoining properties agrees to sell one of them to a
purchaser for an agreed sum and the one to be sold is correctly described to the purchaser, but
when the purchaser inspects the properties, he erroneously believes that the contract of sale covers both properties for the agreed sum and after the execution of the deed of conveyancing the
purchaser discovers that only one of the properties is included, if he brings an action for rectification of the deed, he would not succeed on the ground that the mistake is unilateral; there is no
equity which empowers the court to deprive the innocent vendor of his benefit and entitlements
he had bona fide acquired under the contract. See Kerr on Fraud and Mistake (2nd Ed.), p. 498.
Fowler v. Scottish Equitable Insurance Soc. (1858) 20 L.J. Ch. 225; Gilhespie v. Burdies (1943)
169 L.T. 91.
However there are few cases in which rectification may be granted on the basis of unilateral mistake.
1.
Where one of the parties to the transaction sought to be rectified is mistaken
and the other party is fraudulent, rectification may be granted, for equity will not
allow a person to profit from his fraud. Thus a party to a contract may mistakenly
believe that the written document accurately represents the agreed intention of the
parties, but in fact the other party has through his machination and in fraud (actual
or constructive) of the first party, caused the written agreement to be drawn in a
manner beneficial and advantageous to him to the detriment and at the expense of
the first party. See Clark v. Girdwood (1877) 7 Ch. D. 9 C.A.; Lovesy v. Smith (1880) 15
Ch.D. 655; Hoblyn v. Hoblyn (1889) 41 Ch.D. 200; Awgu v. Nazianya (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 450
at 452. In such cases, rectification may be granted though the mistake is unilateral.
2.
A party is entitled to rectification of a contract if he can establish beyond
reasonable doubt that he believed a particular term to be included in the contract
and that the other party concluded the contract with the omission or a variation
of that term in the knowledge that the first party believed that term to be included. This proposition which is not premised on any kind of fraud or dishonesty was formulated by Pennycuick, J. in Roberts & Co. Ltd. v. Leicestershire C.C.
(1961) Ch. 555 at 573. In that case, the plaintiffs' company agreed to erect a school for the defendant and the parties agreed that the building was to be completed in eighteen months. But the
contract which was submitted to and executed by the plaintiff, contained a completion period of
30 months which the officials of the defendant had substituted for the agreed period of eighteen
months. This substitution was not brought to the notice of the plaintiff before the execution of the
contract. Later when the plaintiffs learnt that the defendant was working on the basis of 30 month
period of completion, they brought an action for rectification which was granted on the basis of
the above proposition.
Snell premised the principle on a species of estoppel. 'By what appears to be a species of equita151
ble estoppel, if one party to a transaction knows that the instrument contains a mistake in his favour but does nothing to correct it, he (and those claiming under him) will be precluded from resisting rectification on the ground that the mistake is unilateral and not common.' See Snell's
Principles of Equity (27th Ed.) 1973, p.614.
As stated by Pennycuick, J. in Roberts & Co. Ltd. v. Leicestershire (supra) at 570571, the exact basis of the principle appears to be in some doubt. 'If the principle is correctly
rested upon estoppel it seems to me that it is not an essential ingredient of the right of action to
establish any particular degree of obliquity to be attributed to the defendants in such circumstances. If, on the other hand, the principle is rested on fraud, obviously dishonesty must be established. It is well established that a party claiming recti fication must prove his facts beyond reasonable doubt; and I think this high standard of proof must equally apply where the claim is
based on the principle indicated above. See Roberts & Co. ltd. v. Leicestershire C.C., op. cit., at
570-71.
3.
In certain cases of unilateral mistake, a defendant resisting rectification
may be put on his election, either to submit to rectification or have the agreement annulled. In Paget v. Marshall (1885) 2 Ch.D. 255, 266 at 267, the plaintiff
agreed to lease a portion of a block of three houses to the defendant at a rent
of 500 a year. The block was to consist of the first, second, third and fourth
floors of all the three houses. The defendant wrote to accept the offer and a
lease was executed. The plaintiff alleged that the first floor of one of the houses was included in the offer and in the lease by mistake. The defendant denied
that he accepted the offer, or executed the lease under any mistake.
The evidence before the court was not sufficient to establish a common mistake upon
which rectification would have been premised, but it was quite clear that the plaintiff was mistaken. Bacon, V.C. said: 'Upon that ground, therefore, I must say that the contract ought to be annulled. I think it would be right and just and perfectly consistent with other decisions that the defendant should have an opportunity of choosing whether he will submit, as the plaintiff asks that
he should submit, to have the lease rectified whether he will choose to take the lease with
that rectification, or whether he will choose to throw up the thing entirely, because the object of
the Court is, as far as it can, to put the parties into the position in which they would have been if
the mistake had not happened.
From the point of view of logic and principle, rescission ought to have been the appropriate remedy because the parties did not appear to have agreed on the same thing. Rescission assumes no
contract. The court was more concerned with the justice of the case, hence it decided to give the
defendant an option of either rectification or rescission. See further, Gerrard v. Frankel (1862)
30 Beav. 445, 457; Harris v. Pepperell (1867) L.R. 5 Eq. 1; Bloomer v. Spittle (1872) L.R. 13
Eq. 427.
The decision is a deviation from both principles and logic, though there is no doubt about the justice of the decision; it is one of the cases in which established principle will not coincide with
justice and the latter would have to prevail.
3.3
When the Remedy will be Refused
(i) Rectification will be refused where the contract is no longer capable of performance; equity like nature does nothing in vain. See Borrowman v. Rossell (1864) 16
152
C.B.N.S. 58. The relief is equally no longer available where a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice has acquired an interest in the subject matter of the contract. In Smith v. Jones
(1954) 2 All E.R. 823 at 827. Upjohn, J. stated that a purchaser is not only entitled but bound to
assume, when he is looking at the agreement under which the tenant holds, that that agreement
correctly states the relationship between the tenant and the landlord, and he is not bound to ask or
to make enquiry whether the tenant has any rights which would entitle him to have the agreement
rectified. It is even doubtful whether an equity of rectification is an equity which is enforceable
against a purchaser of an interest under a contract for which the relief is sought.
(ii) The sole purpose of equitable intervention by way of rectification is to ensure that
an instrument which is intended to give expression to the intention of parties is in fact
in conformity with that intention, therefore, if there is a more flexible and convenient
way of achieving this purpose, rectification may be refused. For example, where there
is a collateral agreement the enforcement of which will cure the same defects as those
which rectification is sought to cure in the major contract, in such a case, rectification
may be refused. Voluntary rectification inter partes is a bar to the relief.
As Evershed, M.R. stated in Whiteside v. Whiteside (1950) Ch. 65 at 75: 'The ground,
however, upon which I prefer to base my conclusion is that which I have indicated that, having regard to the rectification deed which followed and was a consequence of
the absence of any issue at any time between the parties as to their true rights inter se,
the necessary condition for the exercise of the reforming powers of the court is really
absent. Or where the mistake is so apparent and manifest on the face of the instrument
and can be rectified by the application of the usual rules of construction, the equitable
relief of rectification may be refused.
In Wilson v. Wilson (1854) H.L. Cas. 40 at 67, Lord St. Leonards asserts that it will be a
great mistake if it is supposed that even a court of law cannot correct a mistake or error
on the face of an instrument. Since there is no magic in words, if there is a clear mistake which admits of no other construction, a court of law as well as a court of equity (without impugning any doctrine about correcting those things which can only be shown by parol evidence to be mistakes), may correct an obvious mistake on the face of an instrument without the
slightest difficulty.
In such cases, the manifest errors may have resulted from inadvertent omission or insertion of
something or the words in the instrument may have been disarranged. See Re Bacharach's Will
Trusts (1959) CH. 245. The court may, in construing such instrument, add, substitute, delete or
rearrange the words in order to correct the manifest errors and give effect to the intention of the
parties as collected from the fourth corners of the instrument. See the following cases: Wilson v.
Wilson, op. cit.; Re Alexanders Settlement (1910) 2 Ch.D. 225; Re Smith (1948) Ch. 49; Re Whitrick (1957) 2 All E.R. 467.
The exercise of this jurisdiction does not include power to rectify the instrument or do anything
but construe it as it stands. See Re Bacharach Will Trusts (supra) at 249. Therefore, it is not
enough for the court to be satisfied that there is a manifest error on the face of the instrument;
what is intended must also be clear in the context of the instrument without recourse to extrinsic
evidence. See Re Alexanders Settlement (1910) 2 Ch.D. 225 at 229. This brings out the distinction between the common law power to correct patent error on the face of written instrument and
the purely equitable relief of rectification which calls for extrinsic evidence in order to establish
the concurrent intention of the parties at the moment the instrument was executed. See Re Follett
153
(1955) 2 All E.R. 22.

(iii) Where a contract has been fully and wholly performed, and nothing
remains to be done under the contract, there will be no ground for rectification. The object of rectification is to ensure that the true intention of parties
to an agreement prevails and that presupposes a subsisting agreement; where
the agreement is no longer in existence, rectification will be purposeless and
will not be granted.
In Caird v. Moss (1886) 33 Ch.D. 22 at 35-36, the agreement sought to be rectified had been
constructed by a court of competent jurisdiction and money had passed on the basis of the judicial construction. The action was dismissed on the ground that an attempt to reform a spent
agreement and recover the money which has been paid under it cannot be allowed. As Lindley,
L.J. observed: 'the court does not rectify agreements except for some legitimate purpose, and
here there is no object in rectifying the agreement except in order to defeat a judgment with
which the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.'
Miscellaneous
The remedy may be readily granted in cases of unilateral transactions; thus, where a donor or a
settlor has by instrument given two properties when his intention was to give one, the instrument
may be rectified at his instance, to conform with his true intention even though the mistake is unilateral. The remedy is discretionary but it is doubtful if it will be granted in favour of a donee or
a volunteer especially where the gift is not perfect. See Van der Linde v. Van Der Linde (1947) 1
Ch. 306, 310; and Weir v. Van Tromp (1900) 16 T.L.R. 531.
Laches or acquiescence is a defence to an action for rectification. However, there must be notice
of the error to the plaintiff. Time runs from the date of notice for it is inconceivable that on a
question of laches time can run from the time when the error is committed. See Beale v. Kyte
(1907) 1 Ch. 564 at 566.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Enumerate the grounds for rectification.
3.4 Delivery Up and Cancellation of Documents

An order for delivery up and cancellation of documents is an extension of the equitable jurisdiction founded upon the administration of a protective or preventive justice. (Story on Equity (3rd
ed.) p. 294).The exercise of the jurisdiction is to prevent an improper or injurious use of a document which, on the face of it, is apparently valid, but which is latently void or voidable. Thus, the
jurisdiction will be exercised where the document in question has become functus officio, but its
existence is likely to throw some doubts or suspicion on the title or interest of the other party or
subject him to the danger of future litigation when the facts are no longer capable of complete
proof or have become involved in obscurities of time. See Flower v. Marten (1837) 2 My. & Cr.
459. The purpose is not only to protect a party to the document, who invariably will request the
relief, but also to prevent the likelihood of its being used in later years to perpetrate fraud against
innocent third parties.
The document must be either void or voidable but such defect must not appear on the face of the
154
document. Thus, where a policy, though good on the face of it, is liable to be completely avoided
as on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, a court of equity has jurisdiction to direct its delivery up and cancellation. See Duncan v. Worrall (1822) 10 Price 31. In Cooper v. Joel (1859) 27
Beav. 317; affirmed in (1859) 1 De G.F. & J. 240, the defendants claimed the benefits of a guarantee under an agreement which was found to have been obtained by substantial and material misrepresentation. The court held the agreement to be invalid, and as the invalidity did not appear
on the face of it, and order was made for delivery up and cancellation of the document.
On the other hand, where the document is not void or voidable and cannot be avoided or there is
a good legal defence to an action that may be brought upon it, a court of equity will not grant a
relief by way of cancellation; even if there is the danger of the evidence for the defence being
lost; in that case the remedy is not an action for cancellation but an action to perpetuate testimony. Thornton v. Knight (1849) 16 Sim. 509; and Brooking v. Maudslay, Son and Field (1888) 38
Ch.D. 638 at 643.
Similarly relief by way of cancellation will not be granted where the document is void at law and
the defect is patent on the face of the document. See Simpson v. Lord Howden (1837) 3 My. &
Cr. 97. In such a case, no interest is thereby endangered; a patently void document cannot cast
any cloud or suspicion on the title or interest of parties to the document, nor could the document
be used against a third party. However, the document must not be merely void against certain
persons; it must be entirely and completely void. Thus, in Ideal Bedding Co. Ltd v. Holland
(1907) 2 Ch. 157, it was stated that the relief is not appropriate in the case of a deed of settlement
made to defraud creditors on the ground that the document is only void as against the creditors.
The jurisdiction may be exercised in respect of a variety of documents or instruments such as insurance policies, forged or defective negotiable instruments, annuity deed, forged conveyances
and even forged bread-wrapper which is likely to pass-off the bread of the defendant as that of
the plaintiffs. See the following cases: Brooking v. Maudslay. op. cit.; Kemp. v. Pryor (1802) 7
Ves. 237; Earl of Aylesbury v. Morris (1873) 8 Ch. App. 480; Bromley v. Holland (1802) 7 Ves.
3; Peak v. Highfield (l826) 1 Russ. 559; and De Facto Works Ltd. v. Odumotun Trading Co.
(1959) L.L.R. 33.
The remedy is discretionary. A plaintiff seeking the remedy may be placed on terms, for he who
wants equity must be prepared to do equity. See Lodge v. National Union Investment (1907) 1
Ch. 300. Thus in Earl of Aylesbury v. Morris (1873) 8 Ch. App. 484, where an infant, an heirapparent to a large estate had lodged with the Defendant certain bills and policy of insurance as
security for series of loans which the Court found to be extortionate and oppressive, the court ordered the delivery up of the documents on condition that the plaintiff should repay the loans with
5 per cent interest. Furthermore, a plaintiff who seeks the relief must come with clean hands. In
Erhumwunse v. Omoregbe (1961) W.N.L.R. 301 at 305, the Court refused to order cancellation of
a document as the plaintiff had, by his own repeated participation in the illegal transactions, disqualified himself from asking for the relief.
4.0
CONCLUSION
Laches or acquiescence is a defence to an action for rectification. However there must be notice
of the error to the plaintiff. The remedy is discretionary. A plaintiff seeking the remedy may be
placed on terms, for he who wants equity must be prepared to do equity. Furthermore, a plaintiff
who seeks the relief must come with clean hands.
155
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have learnt about rectification, delivery up and cancellation of documents. You
should now be able to: describe the scope and nature of the remedy; enumerate the grounds for
rectification; explain the situations when the remedy will be refused; and explain deliveryup and
cancellation of documents.
6.0
Explain the situations when the remedy of rectification will be refused.
7.0
156
MODULE 4
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
UNIT 1
Equitable Defences
Estoppel
Proprietary Estoppel
Laches and Acquiescence.
ESTOPPEL
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Promissory estoppel
3.2
Scope of promissory estoppel
3.3
Effect of promissory estoppel
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last module, we considered equitable remedies. In this module, we will examine equitable defences starting with estoppel. Estoppel as an enforceable right may be validly resisted by a defence
based on an earlier representation made by the claimant of the right to the person against whom the
right is otherwise enforceable. Similarly a valid defence to an action may cease to be so, on the
ground of an earlier representation made by the person entitled to the defence to the person against
whom the defence is otherwise available.
In other words, where in an action between two parties, one of the parties had, either by words or
conduct, made some representation (in connection with the transaction that gives rise to the cause
of action) to the other party, the maker of such representation would be precluded from denying
making the representation. The insistence of the court that such representation shall not be denied
by the maker may be decisive in the determination of, or fixing the rights of the parties: thus a
plaintiff who had made such representation, may fail in an action in which he would have otherwise
succeeded; likewise a defendant may not be able to plead a defence that would have otherwise
turned the case in his favour.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Define the scope of promissory estoppel; and
(ii) Describe the effect of promissory estoppel.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Promissory estoppel
Whenever such representation is pleaded and sustained by the court, it constitutes a bar to the claim
157
of the maker. This is the basis of the doctrine of estoppel by representation, the principle of which
was aptly stated in West v. Jones (1851), 1 Sim. (N.S.) 205; 61 E.R. 79 at 207. In that case, Lord
Cranworth said 'Where a party has, by words or by conduct, made a representation to another leading him to believe in the existence of a particular fact or state of facts, and that other person has
acted on the faith of such representation, then the party who made the representation shall not afterwards be heard to say that the facts were not as he represented them to be.'
The doctrine is common to both law and equity though there is evidence that it was earlier recognised in equity. See the following cases: Montefiori v. Montefiori (1762) 1 Black W. 363; 96 E.R.
203; Pickard v. Sears (1837) 6 Ad. & E. 469; 112 E.R. 179; Freeman v. Cooke (1848) 2 Ex. 654;
154 E.R. 652; Dyer v. Dyer (1682) 2 Ch. Cas. 108, 22 E.R. 869; and Hobbs v. Norton (1683) 1
Vern. 136; 23 E.R. 370. It is, however, certain that there was no distinction between the application
of the principle at law and in equity until the High Trees Case (1947) K.B. 130. (See also Citizens'
Bank of Louisiana v. First National Bank of New Orleans (1873) L.R. 6 H.L. 352 at 360; and Canadian Pacific Railway v. R. (1931) A.C. 414 at 429).
Before the decision in the High Trees Case (supra), it was believed that the application of the doctrine was limited to representation as to existing fact. In Jorden v. Money (1854) 5 H.L.C. 185; 10
E.R. 868, the House of Lords laid it down that the doctrine only applies to representation of existing
fact and does not apply to mere declaration of intention or future conduct. But in Central London
Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947) K.B. 130 at 134, Denning J. (as he then
was) made use of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court to extend the application of the doctrine so
as to include representation other than one as to existing fact.
In that case, the plaintiff company leased a block of flats to the defendants at a rent of 2,500 per
annum. Later because of the war conditions, many of the flats remained unoccupied and the plaintiff thereby agreed in writing to reduce the rent. The defendants paid the reduced rent up to the end
of the war when the plaintiff claimed his full rent both retrospectively and for the future. He
brought this action claiming rent at the original rate for the last two quarters of 1945 when the war
ended and also to resume his full right to claim rent at the original rate.
It was clear that the defendants could not have sued on the plaintiffs' promise to reduce the rent because the promise was not supported by consideration; as far back as 1884, the House of Lords has
decided that payment of lesser sum is not sufficient for the discharge of greater sum unless there is
fresh consideration. (See Foakes v. Beer (1184) 9 App. Cas. 605). Thus, there could be no estoppel
by way of defence in contract, because the promise to accept rent at a reduced rate was not a contract since consideration, an essential element of contract, was lacking; and an ordinary estoppel by
way of defence was not available because of the decision in Jorden v. Money (supra) which confined the defence of estoppel to representation of existing fact and thereby excluding representation
of intention. But Denning J., thought that the doctrine of estoppel had become more elastic than it
used to be, he therefore, sustained the defence of estoppel as a bar to the claim for arrears of rent
calculated at the original rate. Though the representation was based on a promise as to the future,
the promisor was held bound on the ground that he intended to be legally bound because he intended to create a legal relation which to his knowledge would be acted upon and was in fact so
acted upon.
In the course of his judgment, Denning J., said
'But what is the position in view of developments in the law in recent years? The law has not
been standing still since Jorden v. Money. There has been a series of decisions over the last
fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppels, but are not really such.
158
They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and
which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the
person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on. In such cases the courts
have said that the promise must be honoured.'
This formulation of a new equitable estoppel termed promissory estoppel or estoppel by waiver
was contained in obiter dicta, nevertheless, the proposition has been consistently followed though
various judges who have applied it have not treated it as a case of estoppel because it was not
founded on representation of existing fact. See J.F. Wilson; Recent Developments in Estoppel
(1951) 67 L.Q.R. 330; Ajayi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nig.) Ltd. (1964) 3 ALL ER 556 at 559; and TikaTore Press Ltd. v. Abina (1973) 1 All N.L.R. (part II) 244. Even Denning J. admitted that it was
not a case of estoppel in the strict sense though the result of its application is the same as that of
strict estoppel. Indeed, the cases which Denning J. relied upon for his proposition were decided
without reference to estoppel.
In Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 App. Cas. 439 at 448, the lessor gave the lessee
six months' notice to repair and the lessor would be entitled to an ejectment order if the lessee failed
to comply with the notice. Before the expiry of the notice, the lessor entered into negotiation with
the lessee for the sale of the reversion but the negotiations subsequently terminated. The lessee did
not effect any repair; and on the expiry of the notice, the lessor brought an action seeking an ejectment order against the lessee, claiming that the lease had been forfeited for non-compliance with
the notice to repair.
The House of Lords upheld the lessee's contention that the opening of the negotiations amounted to
a representation of intention by the lessor that he would not enforce the notice, at least during the
currency of the negotiation and that it was that representation that induced the lessee not to comply
with the notice to repair. The court held that the representation precluded the lessor from enforcing
the notice which would start to run only from the termination of the negotiations. As to the principle upon which the court relied: Lord Cairns L.C. said:
' ... It is the first principle upon which all courts of equity proceed, that if parties who have
entered into definite and distinct terms involving certain legal results - certain penalties or legal forfeiture - afterwards by their own act or with their own consent enter upon a course of
negotiation which has the effect of leading one of the parties to suppose that the strict rights
arising under the contract will not be enforced, or will be kept in suspense, or held in abeyance, the person who otherwise might have enforced those rights will not be allowed to enforce them where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which have thus taken place between the parties.'
The principle could not be explained on the general law of estoppel, nor could it be said to be confined to the equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant relief against forfeiture, what the court relied
upon was that it would be inequitable to allow a person who had made such representation as to intention, to retract his position. The principle was further clarified by the Court of Appeal in Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1888) 40 Ch.D. 268
at 286. In that case Bowen L.J. said:
'The principle has nothing to do with forfeiture, and everything connected with forfeiture . ....
The truth is that the proposition is wider than cases of forfeiture. It seems to me to amount to
this, that if persons who have contractual rights against others induce by their conduct those
against whom they have such rights to believe that such rights will either not be enforced or
will be kept in suspense or abeyance for some particular time, those persons will not be allowed by a Court of Equity to enforce the rights until such time has elapsed, without at all
159
events placing the parties in the same position as they were before.'
The principle in Hughes Case (supra) has been consistently followed though in cases of lesser authorities. In Buttery v. Pickard (1945) 174 L.T. 144; 146, Humphreys J., held that a landlord was
precluded from recovering arrears of rent after he had agreed with the tenant to reduce the rent and
that the tenancy should continue on the basis of the reduced rent; the agreement was a representation to the tenant that he, the landlord would not claim the balance. In Salisbury (Marquess) v. Gilmore (1942) 2 K.B. 38, the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff; when his tenancy had two
years 'to run he asked his landlord for a renewal which was refused and was informed by his landlord that the premises were to be demolished at the expiration of the term. The defendant left the
premises unrepaired and the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for breach of covenant to
repair.
The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Mackinnon L.J., invoked the principle in Hughes Case (supra) as enunciated by Bowen L.J. in
Birmingham and District Land Co. case (supra). The representation made by the plaintiff to the defendant that the premises would be demolished at the expiration of the term had induced the defendant
to leave the premises unrepaired and it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to claim damages
having regard to the representation which the plaintiff had made to the defendant. See Salisbury v.
Gilmore (supra) at 51-52.
While the High Trees case (supra) can be justifiably explained on the basis of the principle in Hughes
case, it is an extension of the narrow application of the doctrine of estoppel as stated in Jorden v.
Money. The High Trees case has, in the name of promissory estoppel, given new life to the doctrine of
estoppel by representation. It is, indeed, a rewarding new life, at least, in the interest of justice for, it
is not.difficult to imagine the inevitable and inequitable result if the doctrine of estoppel were to be
confined to its traditional and narrow area of operation.
Nigerian courts have approved of and applied the principle in High Trees case. In Ajayi v. R.T. Briscoe
(Nigeria) Ltd. (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 673 at 679, though the defence, based on promissory estoppel,
was rejected, on the ground that the defendant had not altered his position on the promise made to
him by the plaintiff, the Federal Supreme Court did not doubt that the principle laid down in the
High Trees case created a new estoppel. The court held that a promise, made without further consideration, to withhold the enforcement of rights already accrued under a contract, is not enforceable,
unless it was intended to create legal relations between the parties, and, to the knowledge of the person making it, was going to be acted upon by the person to whom it was made, and was, in fact,
acted upon by him; thereby altering his position under the contract, so as to make it unjust for the
promissor to enforce the rights accured.'
On the appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Hodson without expressly referring to the High Trees case,
gave the most recent formulation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He said: 'The principle
which has been described as quasi-estoppel and perhaps more aptly as promissory estoppel, is that
when one party to a contract in the absence of fresh consideration agrees not to enforce his rights an
equity will be raised in favour of the other party. See Ajayi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (1964) 3 All
E.R 556, 559.
Thus, in Offiong v. African Development Corporation Ltd. (1964) 2 All N.L.R. 75 at 79, the appellant who was the Secretary of the respondent-company was indebted to the company in respect of
the car given to him by the company when he took up employment with them. The appellant resigned his appointment and requested that the company waived the payment of the balance due on
160
the car. The company granted the request but later brought an action to recover the balance claiming,
inter alia, that the release was not binding on the company because the appellant gave no consideration for it. De Lestang C.J. said 'It is contended that the release is not legally binding because the appellant gave no consideration for it. In my view this case falls squarely within the principles established by Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., as explained in Combe v.
Combe. That principle is that where a promise is given without consideration but is intended by the
promisor to affect an existing contract between him and the promisee, and is intended to be acted
upon by the promisee, and is in fact so acted upon, such a promise may be set up as a defence by the
promisee in an action by the promisor to enforce the original contract.
In Esin v. Matzen & Timm (Nigeria) Ltd. (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 233 and in Tika-Tore Press Limited v.
Abina (1973) 1 All N.L.R. (part II) 244, the Supreme Court respectively considered and applied
promissory estoppel as a defence. In the former case, the court approved the application of the principles as stated by the Privy Council in Ajayi v. R. T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. In the latter case of Tika-Tore Press Ltd. v. Abina (supra) at 252-253, where the representation consist of a promise by the
promisor to the promisee that the promisee should pay a lesser sum before certain date, in full and
final settlement of a greater sum, in response to the arguments of the plaintiff, the court said,
'All the arguments about whether the evidence was indicative of the defence, either of 'accord
and satisfaction' or of 'waiver', or whether there was consideration for the 'waiver' or not
merely begged the issue and appear to have been put forward in an abortive effort to sidetract
the defence of estoppel, put forward by the defendants/appellants, and accepted by the
learned trial judge who rightly held that it would be inequitable to enforce the claim. As a
matter of fact, it may be said, with commendable justification, that the former theoretical
view that the fact that there is no consideration or nothing in writing to support the variation
of (the) contract no longer nullifies the effect of the defence of estoppel. ... In effect, this defence of estoppel by waiver (if it may be so conveniently described) is always pleaded by
way of defence. '
The Supreme Court approved of the decision in Hughes case as expanded in the High Trees case; it
however, implicitly doubted the continuing validity of Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 App. Cas. 605, the
equitable defence of promissory estoppel was extolled in a manner that is flexible - so it should be in
the interest of justice. A person who modifies his legal relations within the rules of promissory estoppel, must accept the legal relations as modified by himself, even though such modification is not
supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his word or conduct. Per Denning L.J. in
Combe v. Combe (1951) All E.R. 767 at 770 cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Tika-Tore
Press Ltd. v. Abina (supra).
3.2 Scope of Promissory Estoppel

(i) Is it Limited to Cases Arising out of Existing Contracts:
It is not certain whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies only to obligations
arising strictly out of an existing contract. The principle as expanded in the High Trees
case is wide enough to cover some other cases where the parties are not already contractually bound inter se; for, the emphasis of the learned judge was on the fact that one party had made a promise, intended to be acted upon and was in fact acted upon and was,
therefore, precluded from retracting his promise. However, the authorities cited in support of this proposition limited the principle to cases where there had been re-existing
contracts between the parties.
161
In Hughes case (supra) at 448, the parties were already contractually bound and Lord
Cairns, L.C. envisaged that the principle could only apply where there was a preexisting contractual relationship. 'If parties who have entered into definite and distinct
terms involving certain legal results ... afterwards by their own act or with their own
consent enter upon a course of negotiations which has the effect of leading one of the
parties to suppose that the strict rights arising under the contract will not be enforced.' In
Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Railway Company
(supra) at 286, Bowen L.J. expressly confined the principle in Hughes case to cases
where there were contractual relationships. 'If persons who have contractual rights
against others induce by their conduct those against whom they have such rights .... Except in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions (1949) 1 K.B. 227, where the principle was applied without a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties, the cases in
which the principle has been said to operate involve pre-contractual relationships between the parties.
The recent formulation of the doctrine by Lord Hodson in Ajayi v. R. T. Briscoe (1964) 3 All E.R
556 at 559, envisages that the doctrine can only operate in respect of obligation arising out of contract. 'The principle, which has been described as quasi-estopel and perhaps more aptly as promissory estoppel, is that when one party to a contract in the absence of fresh consideration agrees not
to enforce his rights an equity will be raised in favour of the other party.' The Supreme Court took a
similar view in Tika-Tore Press Limited v. Abina (supra) at 253. In that case, Fatayi-Williams
J.S.C. said 'It is set up, not as the foundation of an action for breach of contract, but as an answer to
the contention of a creditor that the letter of the original contract must be observed.'
But the judgment of Denning L.J. in Combe v. Combe (1951) 1 All E.R. 767, which the Supreme
Court quoted in support of its proposition, did not limit the application of the doctrine to cases
arising ex contractu. Nevertheless, it is reasonably clear that established authorities in support of
the doctrine conceive the doctrine as applicable only to obligations arising out of contract. This
narrow conception of the application of the doctrine may be due to the fact that the cases in which
the doctrine has been invoked and considered, largely involved persons who were contractually
bound. Should the mere fact that the doctrine has been applied mostly in cases involving contractual relations be sufficient to exclude its application to obligations arising otherwise than out of
contract? What is, however, clear, is that whenever the doctrine applies, it modifies the existing
obligations of persons; such obligations need not arise strictly out of contract.
(ii) The Doctrine cannot be used to Create a cause of Action:
The doctrine is limited to matters of defence, it can only be used as a shield and
not as a sword. The doctrine may be set up as a defence by the promisee in an action by the promisor to enforce the original right: but it cannot be sued on as a
separate cause of action by the promise. See Offiong v. African Development Corporation
Ltd. (1964) 2 All N.L.R. 75, 79. 'The courts have not gone so far as to give a cause of
action in damages for the breach of such a promise, but they have refused to allow the party making it to act inconsistently with it. It is in that sense, and that
sense only, that such a promise gives rise to an estoppel.' Central London Property
Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (supra) at 134; Combe v. Combe (supra) at 219.
But in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions (1949) 1 K.B. 277, it would appear that the doctrine was
used to found a cause of action. In that case, the plaintiff had applied to the Minister of Pensions
claiming a military pension. The application was rejected by the Pensions Tribunal on the ground
162
that the plaintiff failed to establish that his disability resulted from military service. On appeal, the
plaintiff relied on a letter which he had received from an official of the Ministry and claimed that
on the strength of that letter the Ministry was precluded from military service. Denning J. upheld
the plaintiff's contention and the appeal was allowed. The letter which generated the estoppel was
also the foundation of the cause of action.
Similarly, in Combe v. Combe (1950) 2 All E.R. 1115. Byrne J. upheld an action predicated on a
promise that was not supported by consideration. The decision was reversed on appeal. The Court
of Appeal was unanimous in rejecting the view that promissory estoppel could operate as the basis
of the cause of action. 'That principle' observed Denning L.J., 'does not create new causes of action
where none existed before.'
Promissory estoppel, as clarified, has since been consistently followed. In Beesly v. Hallwood Estates Ltd. (1960) 2 All E.R. 314 at 324. Buckley J. stated that the doctrine may afford a defence
against the enforcement or otherwise of enforceable rights; it cannot create a cause of action. The
House of Lords in Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 All
E.R. 657, and the Privy Council in Ajayi v. R.T Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (supra) at 559 emphasised
that no encouragement was to be given to the view that the principle was capable of extension so
as to create rights in the promisee for which he had given no consideration.
Though the principle is limited to matters of defence, it may be invoked by either the defendant
or the plaintiff. What is essential to the application of the principle is that there must be an independent cause of action. See Combe v. Combe (1951) 2 K.B. 215, 220. Thus, a plaintiff having an
independent cause of action may invoke promissory estoppel to preclude a defence otherwise
available to the defendant. In Fenner v. Blake (1900) 1 Q.B. 426, the defendant, a tenant of the
plaintiff was desirous of surrendering his tenancy three months earlier than that for which he
could give a valid notice to vacate the premises. He approached his landlord, the plaintiff and entered into an informal agreement with the plaintiff in December to give up possession the following summer.
On the strength of this informal agreement, the plaintiff, with defendant's knowledge and consent, entered into an agreement for the sale of the premises to a third party, with a right to possession at Mid-summer. When the defendant refused to give up possession at midsummer, the
landlord/plaintiff sued in ejectment; the Divisional Court held that the tenant/defendant was estopped from saying that his tenancy did not terminate in June. There was a promise made with
the intention of being acted upon, and was in fact acted upon.
(iii) Consequent to the Promise, the Promisee must have Altered his position:
In order to establish the defence of promissory estoppel the promisee must
have altered his position. This requirement was clearly stated in the leading
cases of Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd.
(1955) 2 All E.R. 657 and Ajayi v. R.T. Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (supra) at 559. In the
latter case, the defence of promissory estoppel was dismissed by the Federal
Supreme Court and on appeal, by the Privy Council, on the ground that the defendant had not altered his position. Lord Hodson, delivering the judgement
ofthe Board said
'The principle which has been described as quasi estoppel and perhaps
163
more aptly as promissory estoppel, is that when one party to a contract

in the absence of fresh consideration agrees not to enforce his rights an
equity will be raised in favour of the other part. This equity is, however,
subject to the qualification that the other party has altered his position.'
The precise meaning of this requirement is not free from difficulties. The position is clear in the
case of ordinary estoppel, the promisee must have altered his position to his detriment. As Farwell J. stated in Dixon v. Kennaway & Co. (1900) 1 Ch. 833 at 836, the phrase 'alter his position' does not mean that an active alteration is necessary, but that it is sufficient if the person to
whom the statement is made rests satisfied with the position taken up by him in reliance on the
statement, so that he suffers loss. Thus, the phrase imports two forms of action, one positive and
the other negative, that is, doing something which he would not have done, or refraining from
doing something which he would have done but for his reliance on the promise. In either case,
the promisee must have suffered detriment.
But the position is not as explicit in promissory estoppel as formulated by Denning L.J. in The
High Trees Case (supra). In that case, the promisee by acting on the promise, did not suffer any
detriment; indeed, he paid less, on the strength of the promise made to him, than he was contractually bound to pay. Furthermore, nowhere in the cases cited in support of the doctrine was consideration given to the relevance of detriment to the operation of the doctrine; admittedly, the
cases were not expressly decided on estoppel though the conclusions seem to import the doctrine.
In Hughes case (supra) at 448, it was stated that a promisor would not be allowed to enforce and
otherwise enforceable right where it would be inequitable having regard to the dealings which
have thus taken place between the parties. In Birmingham and District Land Co. case (supra) at
286, Bowen L.J. stated that promisor will not be allowed by a court of equity to enforce the
rights until such time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as
they were before. The two judgments envisage change of relations between the promisor and the
promisee though it would not appear from the judgments that the change should, necessarily be
detrimental to the promisee.
However, the representation must be such that it will be inequitable to enforce the right under the
original arrangement or transaction. And it will so be inequitable if the representation was made
with the intention of being acted upon and was in fact acted upon; for in such a case, the courts
have insisted that the representation must be honoured; to decide otherwise will be to encourage
breach of faith, which itself constitutes unconscionable and inequitable conduct. Thus, once the
representation is acted upon, on the good faith of the representor, then the representee would
have altered his position and the circumstances would be that it would be inequitable if the representor is allowed to retract his promise. See Foster v. Robinson (1951) 1 K.B. 149; Wallis v. Semark (1951) 2 T.L.R. 222.
The extra-judicial opinion of Lord Denning on this aspect is instructive. He wrote - 'There still
remains the question, when is it 'inequitable' to allow a person to go back on his promise? The
test of what is 'inequitable' may be different when there is a promise from that when there is
some other conduct which leads the other to believe that the strict rights will not be enforced. A
promise has always been considered to be different in nature and quality from conduct of negligence or omission. A man should keep his word. All the more so when the promise is not a bare
promise, but is made with the intention that the other party should act upon it. Just as contract is
different from tort and from estoppel, so also in the sphere now under discussion promises may
give rise to a different equity from other conduct.
164
'The difference may lie in the necessity of showing "detriment". Where one party deliberately promises to waive, modify or discharge his strict legal rights, intending the other
party to act on the faith of the promise, and the other party actually does act on it, then it is
contrary, not only to equity but also to good faith, to allow the promisor to go back on his
promise. It should not be necessary for the other party to show that he acted to his detriment in reliance on the promise. It should be sufficient that he acted on it. That is sufficient in the case of promises given on the formation of a contract. It should also be sufficient in the case of a promise given on the modification or discharge of a contract.'
'But where the party has made no promise, express or implied, and all that can be said
against him is that he by his conduct has induced the other to believe that the strict rights
under the contract will not be enforced or kept in suspense, then the position is different
because there is no question of good faith - no question of a man keeping his word. In
those circumstances, it may be necessary for the other party to show not only that he acted
but also that he acted to his detriment, in the belief that the strict rights would not be enforced. That is what is necessary in the case of an estoppel and there is no good reason
why it should not be necessary here.'
'It must be acknowledged that the foregoing distinction has not yet been drawn in the cases, but it is interesting to notice that the actual decisions are all consistent with it.' See Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Consideration (1952) 15 M.L.R. 1 at 5-6. Lord
Denning insisted that the question is not whether promisee has, by acting on the promise,
suffered detriment but whether it is inequitable to allow a promisor to deny his promise
made in good faith and with the intention of being acted upon by the promisee and was in
fact acted upon. The observations of the House of Lords on the matter in the Tool Metal
Case (supra) at 686 are not inconsistent with Lord Denning's proposition. 'To make the
principle applicable' observed Lord Cohen, 'the party setting up the doctrine must show
that he has acted on the belief induced by the other part.' Viscount Simonds emphasised
that 'the gist of the equity lies in the fact that one party has by his conduct led the other to
alter his position. I lay stress on this, because I would not have it supposed, particularly in
commercial transactions, that mere acts of indulgence are apt to create rights.'
The suggestion that a distinction should be drawn between a deliberate promise to waive or modify strict legal rights and a mere conduct that has induced the other to believe that strict legal
rights will not be enforced may provide for a more flexible application of the doctrine. In the
former case, if the deliberate promise is intended to create legal relation, it is sufficient if the
promise is acted upon even though the requirement as to detriment is not satisfied. But in the latter case, where there is no question of good faith, the promisee must show not only that he has
acted on the promise but also that he suffers loss.
In Nigeria, the topic has been the subject-matter of some consideration in two leading cases and
judicial attitude in both cases tend to favour Lord Denning's view of the matter. In Ajayi v. R.T.
Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 673 at 678-679, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed
the defence of promissory estoppel on the ground that the defendant could neither be said to have
altered his position nor even to have acted on the promise and thereby altered his position. In that
case, the Defendant/Appellant, under a hire-purchase agreement, hired lorries from the plaintiffs/respondents.
The defendant/appellant, having fallen into arrears in his payment of the instalments, wrote to the
165
plaintiffs/respondents complaining that the vehicles were not in good condition due to lack of
proper service and that he had had to withdraw the vehicles from service. In their reply the plaintiffs/respondents stated that they were agreeable to his withholding instalments due on the vehicles as long as they were withdrawn from active service. In fact this letter was written six
months after the final instalment was due and the action claiming the balance due was brought
two years after the last instalment should have been paid. The trial court gave judgment for the
plaintiff/respondent. On appeal, the appellant/ defendant raised the defence of promissory estoppel. He contended on the authority of the High Trees case that the respondents were estopped
from bringing the action by virtue of the letter which the respondents had written to him and that
that letter constituted a waiver.
Taylor F.J., delivering the judgment of the court said:
It is true that a promise was made, that as long as the lorries were off the road the defendant could withhold the payment of the instalments due. It has not been contended, and
indeed it could not be contended that this was a promise which had the effect, in view of
the subsequent sale of the lorries, of waiving the payment of the balance of the debit altogether; as distinct from suspending the time for payment. Finally, I cannot see in what
way the present appellant altered his position, or can be said to have acted on the promise
contained in the letter under consideration, and altered his position. The appellant states
that before the letter was received, and ever since its receipt, eight of the lorries were with
the respondents, and three in the appellant's garage. There is nothing in the evidence ... to
show in what way the appellant having known of the promise acted upon it and thereby altered his position in any way, so as to make it unjust for the respondents to sue for the balance on the hire purchase agreement, two years after the letter was written, and nearly
three years after the final instalment was due.
Assuming that the letter was a deliberate promise intended to create legal relations, it was reasonably clear that the appellant never acted on it so as to alter his position, for his position, at
the time of the action, remained as it was before and after the promise was made. The court did
not doubt the correctness of the principle in the High Trees case; in which there was no question of detriment; the promisee, did act on the promise; as Taylor F.J. observed, in that case the
promise to reduce the rent was made in order to enable the defendants to continue to run their
business which they continued to do.
In Esin v. Matzen & Timm (Nigeria) Ltd. (1966) 1 All N.L.R. 233 at 238-239, the application of the
principles stated by the Privy Council upholding the decision of the Federal Supreme Court in
Ajayi v. Briscoe, was followed. The case concerned another hire-purchase agreement under which
the defendant was in arrears in respect of tippers which he purchased from the plaintiffs under the
agreement. The plaintiffs seized the tippers and later sued the defendant for arrears of instalments
due. Earlier on, in mid-August 1962, the plaintiffs were found to have given an unintended impression that the defendant was given a delay of two months (a moratorium) for payment. The
court inferred a promise from this impression on the ground that external approach ought also to
be applied in promissory estoppel.
On the strength of this promise, the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs were estopped. The
question was whether the defendant had thereby altered his position. His contention was that he
must be regarded as having altered his position because, in reliance on the promise, he did not
pay and thereby laid himself open to the liability of seizure of the tippers. The Supreme Court
found that before the promise in mid-August the defendant had not paid the arrears and the tippers were liable to seizure; and at mid-August the liability to seizure was suspended; but at the
166
end of August the plaintiffs wrote telling the defendant that he must pay the sum due by the 6th
of September.
Thus the suspension was withdrawn and the liability to seizure revived. In essence the defendant's position was again what it had been before and at the time (that is, mid-August) when the
promise was made. There was nothing the defendant did after mid-August to alter his position so
that he should need an opportunity of resuming his former position. 'It is not suggested that he
did anything on the faith of the suspension. He had not the money to pay the arrears he owed before mid-August, and he had it not afterwards. His case is merely this: he had been promised an
indulgence, he expected it not to be withdrawn, and he complains that he was disappointed in his
expectation.'
The question was not whether the defendant altered his position to his detriment, on the other
hand, it was whether he acted on the promise and thereby altered his position. Even though the
defence was one of promissory estoppel by conduct, in which case, on the strength of Lord
Denning's extra judicial opinion, detriment would have been a requirement, the Supreme Court
thought it sufficient merely for the defendant to have acted on the promise.
This judicial attitude was confIrmed in Tika-Tore Press Ltd. v. Abina ((supra), where the defence
of promissory estoppel by conduct was upheld. It was a case of waiver whereby the defendant
paid a lesser sum than he was contractually bound to pay. He acted on the representation by the
payment of a lesser sum, he thereby altered his position but he did not suffer any detriment yet
the Supreme Court stated that it would be inequitable to enforce the plaintiff's claim.

Describe the scope of promissory estoppel.
3.3
Effect of Promissory Estoppel
As a rule, the element of temporariness cannot be divorced from promissory estoppel. See J.F.
Wilson, Recent Development in Estoppel (1955) 67 L.Q.R. 330; Re Venning (1947) 63 T.L.R.
394. Unlike proprietary estoppels, promissory estoppel does not give rise to permanent estoppel.
The promissor can resile from his promise on giving reasonable notice which need not be a formal notice; giving the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming his position. See Ajayi v.
R .T Briscoe (Nigeria) Ltd. (supra). In fact, it is not the promisor alone who can resile from his
promise, either party can change his mind, provided adequate or reasonable notice is given, he
can thereafter resume his original rights and compel performance in accordance with those rights
from the other party. In some cases, giving of notice may not be necessary before either party resumes his original rights; for example, where the condition under which the promise was given
no longer exist; this was the position in the High Trees case where the modern doctrine of promissory estoppel was formulated.
Therefore, the effect of the doctrine is to modify or suspend the original rights of the parties inter
se until such a time has elapsed, without at all events placing the parties in the same position as
they were before. See Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Railway
Co. (supra) at 286. Thus, it will no longer be inequitable to allow a promisor to enforce his original rights if he had given reasonable notice of his intention to do so to the promisee or if certain
supervening events had restored the promisee to the position which he was at the time the promise was made.
167
In the leading case of Tool Metal Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. (supra) at
675, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment
of Pearson, J. as to what constitutes reasonable notice of the promisor's intention to resume his
original rights. Lord Tucker explained the position:
'It is, of course, clear, as Pearson J. pointed out, that there are some cases where the period
of suspension clearly terminates on the happening of a certain event, or the cessation of a
previously existing state of affairs, or on the lapse of a reasonable period thereafter. In
such cases, no intimation or notice of any kind may be necessary. But in other cases,
where there is nothing to fix the end of the period which may be dependent on the will of
the person who has given or made the concession, equity will, no doubt, require some notice or intimation together with a reasonable period for re-adjustment before the grantor is
allowed to enforce his strict rights. No authority has been cited which binds your Lordships to hold that, in all such cases, the notice must take any particular form or specify a
date for the termination of the suspensory period. This is not surprising having regard to
the infinite variety of circumstances which may give rise to this principle which was
stated in broad terms and must now be regarded as of general application. It should, I
think, be applied with great caution to purely creditor and debtor relationships which involve no question of forfeiture or cancellation, and it would be unfortunate if the law were
to introduce into this field technical requirements with regard to notice and the like which
might tend to penalise or discourage the making of reasonable concessions.'
However, much as the element of temporariness is inherent in promissory estoppel, there are
cases in which the effect of the application of the doctrine creates permanent estoppel, such cases
may therefore be regarded as exceptions to the temporariness and suspensory nature and character of the doctrine. Thus, a promissory estoppel will become final and irrevocable if, by supervening events, the parties cannot resume or be restored to their original positions.' Cases of complete and effective waiver or variation of original contractual rights or arrangements provide ample illustrations. See Tika-Tore Press ltd. v. Abina (1973) 1 All N.L.R. (part II) 244; Offiong v.
African Development Corporation Ltd. (1964) 2 All N.L.R. 75.
In Tika-Tore Press Ltd. (supra), the promisor had agreed to accept a lesser sum in full and final settlement of a greater sum which the promisee then owed the promisor. The amount having been
paid as agreed the promisor was held to have waived his right and was, therefore, estopped from
claiming the balance from the promisee. Similarly, in Fenner v. Blake (1900) 1 Q.B. 426, the tenant was held liable to ejectment, three months before the expiration of his tenancy on
the ground that he had earlier on promised the landlord that he would vacate the premises
at that time and on the strength of this promise the landlord had sold the premises to a
third party, and providing for a vacant possession to be given. In Salisbury v. Gilmore (1942)
2 K.B. 38, the tenant, who had vacated the premises was held not liable for breach of covenant to repair on the ground that the landlord had before the expiration of the tenancy,
represented to the tenant that the premises would be demolished at the expiration of the
tenancy.
4.0
CONCLUSION
It is not certain whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies only to obligations arising strictly out of an existing contract. The principle which has been described as quasi estoppel and perhaps more aptly as promissory estoppel, is
168
that when one party to a contract in the absence of fresh consideration agrees
not to enforce his rights an equity will be raised in favour of the other part.
This equity is, however, subject to the qualification that the other party has altered his position.
5.0SUMMARY
In this unit we considered promissory estoppel as an equitable defence. You should now be able
to: define the scope of promissory estoppel; and describe the effect of promissory estoppel.
6.0
What do you understand by promissory estoppel? Discuss.
7.0
UNIT 2
PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Basis of the doctrine
3.2
Application of the doctrine
3.3
Proprietary estoppel and constructive notice
3.4
Effect of the operation of the doctrine
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit we considered promissory estoppel as an equitable defense. In this unit, we will
consider the second aspect which is proprietary estoppel. Where A expends money on land in the
erroneous belief that he is the owner and B, the true owner, with the knowledge of A's error, deliberately abstains from asserting his right and thereby encourage A to persist in his error, proprietary estoppel or estoppel by acquiescence will operate and B will not thereafter be allowed to
assert his right in the land against A.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i) Explain the basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel;
169
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Apply the doctrine of proprietary estoppel;

Link Proprietary estoppel and constructive notice; and
Explain the effect of the operation of the doctrine.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1
Conduct giving rise to estoppel may be passive or active. First inaction may amount to passive acquiescence upon which proprietary estoppel may be founded. Thus in Ramsden v. Dyson (l866)L.R. 1
H.L. 129 at 140-141, Lord Cranworth L.C. said:
'If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be his own, and I, perceiving his mistake, abstain from setting him right, and leave him to persevere in his error, a court of equity
will not allow me afterwards to assert my title to the land in which he had expended money on
the supposition that the land was his own. It considers that, when I saw the mistake into which
he had fallen, it was my duty to be active and to state my adverse title, and that it would be
dishonest in me to remain wilfully passive on such an occasion in order afterwards to profit
by the mistake which I might have prevented. But it will be observed that to raise such an equity, two things are required, first, that the person expending his money supposes himself to
be building on his own land; and, secondly, that the real owner at the time of the expenditure
knows that the land belongs to him and not to the person expending the money in the belief
that he is the owner. For if a stranger builds on my land knowing it to be mine, there is no
principle of equity which would prevent my claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure, made on it. There would be nothing in my conduct, active or passive, making it inequitable in me to assert my legal rights.'
Secondly, conduct encouraging such expenditure as referred to in Lord Cranworth's proposition otherwise known as the rule in Ramsden v. Dyson may amount to active acquiescence capable of supporting a claim of proprietary estoppel. 'If A puts B into possession of a piece ofland, and tells him, 'I
give it to you that you may build a house on it', and B on the strength of that promise, with the knowledge of A, expends a large sum of money in building a house accordingly, I cannot doubt that the
donee acquires a right from the subsequent transaction to call on the donor to perform that contract
and complete the imperfect donation that was made.' Per Lord Westbury L.C. in Dilwyn v. Llewellyn
(1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 517 at 521; 45 E.R. 1285.
It is reasonably clear that the basis of the doctrine is fraud as manifested in the conduct of the owner
of the land; for a person is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in such a way as
would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. See Fry J. in Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15
Ch.D. 96 at 105. It is evidently fraudulent for a true owner of land, in the circumstances explained in
Ramsden v. Dyson and in Dillwyn v. Llewellyn, to set up his title with a view to claiming the land
with the improvements made on it by the mistaken party to the knowledge and with the passive or
active acquiescence of the true owner.
However, for the court to restrain the owner of a legal right from exercising it on the plea of proprietary estoppel by the person who has expended money, certain requisites must be established. These
were stated by Fry J., in Willmott v. Barber (supra).
(i) First, P who has expended money on the land must have been mistaken as to
his legal right in the land; he must have genuinely believed though, erroneously,
that he was the owner of the land;
(ii) P, acting on the faith of his mistaken belief, must have expended some money
170
or must have done some act which will be pre-judicial to him if D the true owner of
the land were subsequently allowed to set up his right against P;
(iii) D, the true owner, must have known of the existence of his own right which
is inconsistent with the right claimed by P. If D was unaware that he was the owner
of the land the plea of proprietary estoppel will not be sustained; see Armstrong v.
Sheppard & Short Ltd. (1959) 2 Q.B. 384.
There cannot be conduct amounting to acquiescence, an essential element of the
doctrine, where the true owner was not aware of his right and, therefore, could not
be said to have knowledge of or to have acquiesced to any infringement of such
right;
(iv) D must have known of P's mistaken belief of his rights in the land, such knowledge will
raise an equity in favour of P and make it inequitable for D to subsequently set up his title
against P;
(v) D must have encouraged P in his expenditure of money or in other acts which P has done
either directly or by abstaining from asserting his legal rights.
The foregoing elements must co-exist in order to establish a plea of proprietary estoppel.
In Ozokpo v. Paul (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) p.494, the case for the respondent is that, her father
made a grant of a piece of land to her. It is part of a portion of land given to her father by her grandfather. The land was given to her in 1956. She and her mother farmed on it planting cassava, vegetables, okro, etc. sometime in the 1950s, she saw one Ogbuka developing the said land. In spite of
warnings from her and her father, Ogbuka erected a building on the land. Ogbuka sold the house in
1958 to Ozokpo and Ozokpo moved into the house. He took on tenants and then the civil war broke
out.
Ozokpo fled to Portharcourt with his family and abandoned the property leaving behind his personal
belongings and documents of title relating to the property. In the absence of Ozokpo, the respondent
(Justina Paul) moved into the building and took possession, saying the building was erected on her
land without her consent. Ozokpo died before the end of the war. His widow got back from Portharcourt and tried to get the house back. The respondent refused to give up possession. Mrs. Ozokpo
applied for and obtained letters of administration to manage the estate of Ozokpo. As the respondent
would not give up possession, Mrs. Ozokpo (appellant) took out an action against the respondent for
arears of rent in the Magistrate Court in Portharcourt and she got judgment in her favour. The respondent (Paul) paid up arrears of rent owed.
The Court held that a tenant who pays rent to another as landlord with full knowledge of the fact that
he was not the sole owner of the property, is stopped from subsequently denying the landlords title.
It was dishonest of the respondent to move into the house when Ozokpo died reaping where she did
not sow. There is even no evidence that the respondent ever protested to Ozokpo in respect of the
property when he was alive.
3.2 Appication of the Doctrine

The doctrine has found favour in Nigerian Courts though it is sometimes confused with the doctrine
of laches. In Rafat v. Ellis (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 430 at 431, a creditor obtained judgment against the
plaintiff's sister and attached the judgment debtor's unoccupied family property which was sold under a writ of fifa to the defendant. However, the transaction was void since the subject-matter of the
sale was family property in which the plaintiff's sister had no alienable interest, and the family never
consented to the sale. The plaintiff admitted that he heard of the sale some time in 1942 and alleged
171
that he promptly instructed his solicitor to investigate and take action. In fact, the solicitor did nothing until September 1945 when he wrote a letter to the defendant asserting the plaintiff's title. By that
time the defendant had erected a substantial building on the land. The defendant relied on the conduct of the plaintiff and the members of his family in standing by from 1942 to 1945 and permitting
the defendant to erect a substantial building without any indication to him that there was a defect in
his title.
Windsor-Aubrey J., delivering the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal, observed that the
question the court had to decide was whether the plaintiff was estopped by laches and acquiescence,
from claiming the property. It was held that the defendant had successfully raised the defence of estoppel under the rule in Ramdsden v. Dyson. The principle is that the person expending the money
must suppose himself to be building on his own land; in, this case the land in question was unoccupied and it was purchased under an execution sale; the circumstances were such that the defendant
could reasonably believe that he was acquiring a good title to the property. Secondly, the plaintiff
and members of his family were found to have knowingly acquiesced to the defendant's activities on
the land, for, 'there was nothing to prevent them instituting an action for a declaration of title in
1942', since that time 'the members of the plaintiff's family were well aware of the erection of the
building by the defendant and deliberately stood by until the building was completed.'
On these facts, the court found that 'This is not a question of the plaintiff and his family simply neglecting to enforce a claim', and therefore, on the principle of Ramsden v. Dyson, 'they must, by their
conduct, be held to have acquiesced, and knowingly permitted the defendant to incur expenditure on
renovating and adding to the building. They have thereby waived and abandoned any rights which
they possessed, and cannot now enforce them'.
3.3
Proprietary Estoppel and Constructive Notice
In the earlier case of Morayo v. Okiade (1942) 8 W.A.C.A. 46, the West African Court of Appeal
approved of the equitable rule as stated in Caincross v. Lorimer (1860) 3 L.T. 130, and as expanded
in Ramsden v. Dyson (supra).
'It is a rule of universal law that if a man either by word or by conduct has intimated that he
consents to an act which has been done and that he will offer no opposition to it, although it
could not have been lawfully done without his consent and he thereby induces others to do
that from which they otherwise might have abstained he cannot question the legality of the act
he had so sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have given faith to his word, or to the fair
inference to be drawn from his conduct. In such cases, proof of positive assent or concurrence
is unnecessary; it is enough that the party had full notice of what was being done and the position of the other party is altered'.
But the question the court had to decide was whether a stranger, who mistakenly incurred expenditure on land with the passive or active acquiescence of the real owner, is precluded from setting up
the rule in Ramsden v. Dyson on the ground that he had constructive notice of the real owner's title.
In that case, there was evidence before the trial court that the plaintiff did all within her power to apprise the defendant of her claim to the property but in spite of that knowledge the defendant embarked on the erection of the building. See Morayo v. Okiade (1942) 8 W.A.C.A. 46 at 48.
It was, therefore, clear to the Appeal Court (though this evidence was lost sight of by the trial judge,
due to inaccurate exposition of facts) that the plaintiff/appellant ought not to have been estopped in
view of the principle in Rennie v. Young (1858) 2 De. G. & J. 136.44 E.R 939 which is consistent
with the rule in Ramsden v. Dyson (supra)that the equitable rule as to the effect of a person's lying by
172
and allowing another to expend money on his property does not apply when the money is expended
with knowledge of the real state of the title.
But the Appeal Court went further to say 'We are unable to reconcile the learned Judge's finding,
namely that 'the defendants admit that they made no inquiries as to Oshodi's title and must be held to
have had constructive notice of the documents on which their title was based namely the auctioneer's
receipt and plaintiff's own conveyance' with his decision that the plaintiff/appellant is estopped. We
are of the opinion that having held that the defendant/respondent had constructive notice of the appellant's title he was precluded on the authority of Rennie v. Young from finding that acquiescence
on the part of the appellant operated as estoppel.' See Morayo v. Okiade (supra) at 48.
No doubt, the question of constructive notice is unnecessary for his decision, since it has been found
that the defendant/respondent had actual notice of the real owner's title. However, it would appear to
be the view of the court that constructive notice as distinct from actual notice precludes the operation
of the rule in Ramdsden v. Dyson (supra) thereby narrowing the area of operation of the rule.
The importance of constructive notice as it affects the operation of the rule in Ramsden v. Dyson was
further considered by the Supreme Court in Owodunni v. George (1967) 1 All N.L.R 177. In that
case both plaintiff and defendant claimed to have derived their competing titles from one Eyisha
family who originally owned the land in dispute. The defendant denied the earlier title of the plaintiff
and claimed that he had been in an undisturbed possession of the land for several years and that he
had expended money in erecting buildings on the land. He relied on laches and acquiescence, though
the defence was treated as equitable estoppel.
The trial court upheld the superior title of the plaintiff; it, however recognised the equity of the defendant's case; he built without any warning from the plaintiff of his claim to title, nevertheless, it
was held that the defendant must lose because he could have found out that the plaintiff had a superior claim to the land. On appeal, the counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the judgment of the lower court recognised the equity of the defendant/appellant's case, but rejected it on the ground of constructive notice, he therefore, sought to support this ground of rejection by citing the earlier decision
of the West African Court of Appeal in Morayo v. Okiade (supra).
In its judgment, the Supreme Court approved of Ramsden v. Dyson (supra) as ably expanded by Fry J., in
Willmott v. Barber (supra). It, however, rejected the view that constructive notice precludes the operation of the rule. Bairamian J.S.C. said:
'The defendant bought with a conveyance and built at great expense on the land in the belief,
here assumed for this aspect of the appeal to have been mistaken, that the land was his; the
plaintiff knew about it and regarded the land as his own, but did not warn him, and now wants
the land and buildings for himself. The trial judge grants it to him on the basis that the defendant ought not to have made a mistake on the ground of what is usually described as constructive notice, but with respect, that is helping the plaintiff to reap the fraudulent fruit of standing
by, and the equity of the defendant's case must prevail.'
See Owodunni v. George (1967) 1 All N.L.R. 177, 181-182.
Thus, the Supreme Court refused to follow Morayo v. Okiade (supra) on the ground that the observations
of Turner L.J. in Rennie v. Young (supra) which the West African Court of Appeal relied upon in that case
do not warrant the engrafting of 'constructive notice' upon the doctrine of standing by. (See Owodunni v.
George (supra) at 183). In support of this contention the Supreme Court relied on the view of Fry J.,
in Willmott v. Barber (supra) at 101,106 where he said as follows'The equitable doctrine of acquiescence is founded on there having been a mistake of fact; can it be re173
pelled by showing that there was constructive notice of the real facts? In every case in which a man
acts under the mistaken belief that he is entitled to land, he might, if he had inquired, have found out
that he had no title. And yet the courts appear always to have inquired simply whether a mistake has
been made, not whether the plaintiff ought to have made it.'
The position now, with regard to the relevance of constructive notice to the operation of equitable
estoppel, is that whenever a person is seeking the relief, not on a contract, but on the footing of a
mistake of fact, the mistake is not the less a ground for relief because he had the means of knowledge. As has been stated earlier, the doctrine of constructive notice is a dangerous one, in that it is
contrary to the truth; being wholly founded on the assumption that a person does not know the
facts; and yet it is said that constructively he does know them; it is a doctrine which ought not to be
extended further beyond its traditional area of operation, otherwise, it may defeat the end of justice
which the judges who invented it wanted to serve.

What is the importance of constructive notice as it affects the operation of the rule in Ramsden v. Dyson?
3.5
The Effect of the Operation of the Doctrine
Proprietary estoppel or equitable estoppel gives rise to a permanent modification of the rights of the
parties and those of their successors in title; unlike promissory estoppel whose effect is as a rule,
temporary of suspensory. Moreover, proprietary estoppel can be used either as a shield or as a
sword. In other words, it is capable of creating substantive rights upon which a cause of action may
be founded. See the following: Dillwyn v. Llewelyn (1862) 4 De G.F. & J. 517; 45 E.R. 1285. Thomas v. Thomas (1956) N.Z.L.R. 785; Ibadan City Council v. Ajanaku (1969) N.M.L.R. 32.
Whenever the plea is sustained, it creates an equity in favour of the person who has expended
money on the land and, the real owner of the land will henceforth be prevented from exercising or
asserting his legal rights in respect of the land. However, the question remains as to whether the
person who has expended money will be given compensation for the money so expended or he is
entitled to conveyance. There is much uncertainty as to the kind of order the court will make
whenever the relief is granted. There does not appear to be any general rule as to the proper order.
Thus, the court must look at the circumstances in each case to decide in what way the equity can
be satisfied. See Lord Denning MR in E.R. Investment Ltd. v. High (1967), 2 Q.B. 379 at 395. It is
however, reasonably clear that in giving effect to the kind of equity so created, the courts have exercised a very wide discretion in making such an order as will do substantial justice between the
parties and settle all outstanding questions between them. See Aileru v. Ademuoye (1967) 1 All
N.L.R. 271 at 274.
The matter was considered by the Supreme Court in Aileru v. Ademuoye (supra). In that case, plaintiffs, representing the Ojuwoye community, were the owners under native law and custom, of the
land in dispute. They brought this action claiming, inter alia, a declaration of title to the land. The
defendant claimed that he had become the fee simple owner of the land by virtue of a deed of
conveyance executed by certain members of the plaintiffs' community; that he had entered the
land, expended a large sum in erecting substantial buildings on it to the knowledge of and without
any indication of the interest of the plaintiffs in the land.
The trial judge found that the community was the owners of the land and that the vendors had no
174
authority to sell it. The trial judge held that the plaintiffs were guilty of lying by while the defendant was expending money on the land under the mistaken belief and to the knowledge of the
plaintiffs, that he, the defendant owned the land. Nevertheless, the trial judge granted the plaintiffs a declaration of title but dismissed their claim to other forms of relief which in effect confirmed the right of the defendant to possession and prevented the plaintiffs from exercising their
legal rights as owners of the land.
On appeal, the question the Supreme Court had to decide was whether the judgment of the lower
court as a whole did the fullest possible justice between the parties and whether it should be varied in any way. It was the view of the court that what the defendant had in the events that had
taken place was not an equitable interest in the land but an equity and that where such an equity is
created by the acquiescence of the owner of the land, the person who has expended money will be
entitled to have supposed title confirmed or, at any rate, to be compensated for his outlay.
On this holding the court adjourned the appeal so that the plaintiffs might consider whether to offer
the defendant, the owner of the equity, compensation for the expense he had incurred and also that
defendant might consider whether to counter-claim for a conveyance of the land and to offer to pay
the plaintiffs the value of the land as it was when he took possession of it. It later transpired that the
plaintiffs offered the defendant compensation which the defendant rejected claiming that his equity
would not thereby be satisfied by the compensation. The Supreme Court held that in the circumstances of the case the defendant's equity would not be satisfied by allowing plaintiffs to pay him
compensation.
Enforcement of the equity so created in favour of the person who has expended money on land depends upon the circumstances of each case. See E.R lves. Investments Ltd. v. High (supra), Aileru v.
Ademuoye (supra). Thus, the court has a wide discretion limited only by the circumstances of the
case and the duty of the court to ensure substantial justice between the parties. Indeed, the exercise
of the jurisdiction is correctly described as equity at its most flexible. See Danckwerts L.J. in E.R
Investments Ltd. v. High (supra) at 399.
However, the guiding principle seems to be the desire of the court to ensure, as much as possible,
the fulfillment of the expectations of the owner of the equity in expending money on the land. 'It is
quite plain' observed Lord Denning M.R. in Inwards v. Baker (1965) 2 Q.B. 29; (1965) 1 All E.R.
446, 'that if the owner of land requests another, or indeed allows another, to expend money on the
land under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he will be able to remain
there, that raises an equity in the person so encouraged such as to entitle him to stay'. (1965) 1 All
E.R. 446 at 448.
In Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick (1853) 17 Beav. 60 at 79-80; 51 E.R. 954, the equity was satisfied
by a conveyance of the land to the owner of the equity on his offer to pay compensation. The court
might itself determine the amount of compensation. In Dillwyn v. Llewelyn (1882) De G.F. & J.
517 at 522; 45 E.R. 1285, the father placed his son, the plaintiff, in possession of his land and at
the same time signed a memorandum presenting the land to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could
build on it a dwelling house of his own. The plaintiff, with the assent and encouragement of the father, built at his own expense, a house upon the land and resided there.
At his father's death, the plaintiff brought this action against the father's personal representatives,
claiming to be entitled to a conveyance of the fee simple. His expectations at the time he was
building on the land were that he would be allowed to remain on the land and that he would eventually become the absolute owner of it. It was held that he was entitled to call for a conveyance of
175
the fee simple being the best possible way in which his equity could be satisfied. Lord Westbury
L.C. said:
'The equity of the donee and the estate to be claimed by virtue of it depend on the transaction, that is, on the acts done, and not on the language of the memorandum, except as that
shows the purpose and intent of the gift. The estate was given as the site of a dwelling-house
to be erected by the son. The ownership of the dwelling-house and the ownership of the estate must be considered as intended to be co-extensive and co-equal.'
Here, in Dillwyn v. Llewelyn, proprietary estoppel was used as a sword. In the New Zealand case
of Thomas v. Thomas (1956) N.Z.L.R. 785 at 793, the equity of the wife, who had expended money on her husband's land, was satisfied by an order compelling the husband, the real owner of the
land to convey the fee simple to the wife. In the case Gresson J. observed as follows: 'If Dillwyn v.
Llewelyn in case of equitable estoppel by acquiescence (and it is susceptible of being so regarded)
'it is an authority for the use of that doctrine as a sword and not merely as a shield. The son did not
content himself with resisting eviction but asserted a claim which was upheld to the point of holding him entitled to a conveyance.'
In Attorney-General v. John Holt & Co. (1910) 2 N.L.R. 1 at 16, the defendants had incurred expenditure in reclaiming the plaintiff's land which defendants were using for their own business to
the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. Osborne C.J. refused the plaintiffs' claim for an injunction but the defendants were granted a declaration that their rights to remain and use the land for
their business was irrevocable and perpetual. In the course of his judgment the Chief Justice said:
... On the strength of the understanding the defendants' predecessors in title expended
money in reclamation and building ... on the authority of Plimmer v. Mayor, etc., of Wellington (1884) 9 App. Cas. 699, that licence of the Crown is now irrevocable, and being of
indefinite duration, perpetual. I hold, therefore, that the respective defendants and those
claiming under them have acquired, as to so much of the land adjoining that comprised in
the respective Crown grants under which they claim, as consisted of foreshore and bed of
the lagoon reclaimed by themselves or their predecessors in title, a perpetual right to place
and store such things thereon ... .
The fulfilment of the expectation of the person expending money is an important influencing factor
in making an order that will satisfy the equity so created. In Inwards v. Baker (1965) 1 All E.R.
446 at 449, the son who had built a bungalow on his father's land with the intention of residing
there and making it his home was held entitled to stay there so long as he wished it to remain his
home. 'The court will not allow the expectation to be defeated where it would be inequitable so to
do. In this case, it is quite plain that the father allowed an expectation to be created in the son's
mind that this bungalow was to be his home. It was to be his home for his life, or at all events, his
home so long as he wished it to remain his home'.
This was followed by the Supreme Court in Ibadan City Council & Anor v. Ajanaku (1969)
N.M.L.R. 32 at 37-38. The defendants predecessor-in-title had purportedly granted a lease of
land to the plaintiff's predecessorin-title free of rent and for such period as he and his successor-intitle should occupy the land. It was a void lease but the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title had expended money on the land and were in undisturbed possession.
The Supreme Court held that:
'This was sufficient to create an expectation in the minds of the plaintiffs predecessor and
his successors-in-title that they are entitled to remain in occupation of the land free of rent
for an indefinite period. It seems to us only reasonable to infer that it was on the strength of
176
this that buildings were erected on the land by the plaintiff. 'In these circumstances, we consider that an equity was created by estoppel to safeguard the plaintiff's interest and protect
the buildings he erected on the land. As against the defendant/appellant whose predecessor
in title was a party to the purported grant of lease, equity will therefore come to the aid of
the plaintiff to ensure that injustice is not perpetrated and that he and his successors are allowed to remain on the land for an indefinite period free of rent.'
In some other cases, the real owner of the land may be ordered to pay compensation in satisfaction of the equity of the person who has expended money on the land (see Unity Joint-Stock Mutual Banking Association v. King (1888) 25 Beav. 72; 53 E.R. 563) or in the alternative the person who has made the expenditure may be granted an equitable lien on the property, this would
serve as security for the money so expended with the encouragement or acquiescence of the real
owner. See Chalmers v. Pardoe (1963) 1 W.L.R. 677 at 681-682, where it was stated that:
'There can be no doubt upon the authorities' observed Sir Terence Donovan, 'that where
an owner of land has invited or expressly encouraged another to expend money upon part
of his land upon the faith of an assurance or promise that that part of the land will be
made over to the person so expending his money, a court of equity will prima facie require the owner by appropriate conveyance to fulfil his obligation; and when, for example, for reasons of title, no such conveyance can effectively be made, a court of equity
may declare that the person who has expended the money is entitled to an equitable
charge or lien for the amount so expended.'
The court must look at the circumstances in each case to decide in what way the equity can be
satisfied. See Plimmer v. Wellington Corporation (1884) 9 App. Cas. 699, 714 P.C.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Proprietary estoppel or equitable estoppel gives rise to a permanent modification of the rights of
the parties and those of their successors in title. Moreover, it can be used either as a shield or as a
sword. It is reasonably clear that the basis of the doctrine is fraud as manifested in the conduct of
the owner of the land; for a person is not to be deprived of his legal rights unless he has acted in
such a way as would make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit we have considered another equitable defence. You should now be able to: explain
the basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel; apply the doctrine of proprietary estoppel; link
proprietary estoppel and constructive notice; and explain the effect of the operation of the doctrine.
6.0
Briefly explain the effect of the operation of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
7.0
177
UNIT 3
LACHES
AND ACQUIESCENCE
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Introduction
Objectives
Main content
3.1
Equitable defence of Laches
3.2
Distinction between proprietary estoppel and laches
3.3
3.3
Laches and customary law
3.5
Limit of the doctrine
3.6
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
3.7
3.8
The scope of clean hands
Conclusion
Summary
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we considered the doctrine of proprietary estoppels. In this unit, we will look at
another equitable defence which is laches and acquiescence. The equitable defence of laches is
another important doctrine in the development of equity jurisdiction in the Nigerian Legal System. 'It is no exaggeration to state that of all the equitable rules that have been invoked to mould
the application of the indigenous West African laws, the maxim 'equity aids the vigilant' has been
the most active.' See Daniels; The Common Law in West Africa (1964) p.304.
2.0
OBJECTIVES

(i)
Explain the equitable defence of laches and acquiescence;
(ii) Distinguish between proprietary estoppel and laches;
(iii) Explain laches and customary law;
(iv) Describe the maxim He who comes to equity must come with clean hands;
(v) Explain the operation of the doctrine; and
(vi) Define the scope of clean hands.
3.0
MAIN CONTENT
3.1
Equitable defence of Laches
Under the English legal system, the importance of the doctrine is well recognised. Hanbury conceded that the doctrines of laches and acquiescence run through the whole of equitable doctrine.
See Modern Equity (7th Ed.) p. 633. This doctrine emanated from the maxim 'delay defeats equi178
ties' or 'equity aids the vigilant'. Simply put, the substance of the doctrine seems to be that a litigant who has unreasonably slept over his right may not be granted equitable relief in respect of
this right particularly where the granting of such relief will result in hardship to the other party
who has acquired the right. The exercise of this equitable jurisdiction, like all others, is discretionary and, in the usual manner, the discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily.
The doctrine may be invoked where the conduct or neglect of the plaintiff indicates to the defendant a waiver of the plaintiff's rights, which rights have been acquired by the defendant. See Ibeziako v. Abutu (1958) II E.N.L.R. 24, 27; Blake v. Gale (1886) 32 Ch.D. 571. As Lord Camden
put it, a court of equity: 'has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept
upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this court into activity but conscience, good faith; and reasonable diligence; where these are wanting, the court is
passive and does nothing.' See Smith v. Clay (1767) 3 Bro. C.C. 639n at 640n.
In Erikitola v. Alli & Others (1941) 16 N.L.R. 56, Butler Lloyd Ag. C.J., delivering the judgment
of the Supreme Court, contended that laches consists of standing by while an infringement of one's
rights is in progress. In this case, the Supreme Court refused to invoke the doctrine because the
owners of the rights in dispute did not stand by but posted caution notices on both occasions when
an infringement of their rights by the sale of the property was attempted. See further, Odunsi v. Kuforiji (1948) 19 N.L.R. 7.
In Chukwuma v. Ifeloye (2008) 12 S.C. (Pt. II) p. 291, the Supreme Court held:
That since there was no evidence that the Plaintiff/Appellant had been aware of the trespassers entry upon her land earlier than the time she caused a Stop Work Order to be
served on the Defendant/Respondent or that she had caused the Stop Work Order to be vacated before she ultimately sued in court. Merely negotiating with the defendant/appellant is
not enough evidence to support the conclusion that she had waived the trespass committed
on her land. It would have been a different situation if she had, following the negotiation,
caused the Stop Work Order to be vacated.
The circumstances in which the doctrine may be invoked were explained by Lord Selbourne, in his
often-quoted passage in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221 at 239-240, said,
'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'.
The circumstances warranting the invocation of the doctrine were aptly stated by the Supreme
Court in the case of Fagbemi v. Aluko (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 233 at 237. In considering the equitable
doctrine of laches, the court does not act only on the delay by the plaintiff, but must also consider
(i) acquiescence on the plaintiff's part, and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.'
179
3.2
Distinction Between Proprietary Estoppel and Laches
No doubt, there is much similarity between laches and equitable estoppel; hence, the tendency, on
the part of the courts to confuse one with the other. The basis of this confusion seems to be the
question of acquiescence which is common to both doctrines. In Aganran v. Olushi (1907) 1
N.L.R. 66 at 68, the right of the plaintiff had been infringed by the defendant, but the plaintiff took
no steps to assert his right until 3 years after the violation. Winkfield J., delivering the judgment of
the Full Court said 'In the absence of any evidence I think that it must be taken that the defendants
did not know that the plaintiff had withdrawn his consent to the sale. Although he was aware that
the defendants were suing, as owners, to eject the occupiers of the land and knew the terms of the
settlement, he permitted the defendants to pay the compensation and to take possession of the land
without objection. For nearly three years he took no steps to set the sale aside. During this period
he also suffered the defendants to erect the houses on the lands without interference. I think that the
action of the plaintiff amounted to an expression of intention or a promise not to exercise the right
which he possessed.
The facts of the case could give rise to either estoppel or laches. On the question of estoppel, there
was the mistaken belief on the part of the defendants that they were the owners of the land and, on
the strength of this belief they proceeded to expend money on the land to the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiff, the real owner of the land. Thus, acquiescence of the plaintiff to the defendants' activities on the land created an equity in favour of the defendants which equity could be
satisfied by the invocation of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Here acquiescence was only relevant as at the time the right was being infringed.
On the other hand, acquiescence in laches means unexplained delay in asserting one's right after infringement of such rights. In this case, for nearly three years after his right had been infringed, the
plaintiff took no steps to assert his rights. In the circumstance, his claim might have become stale
and therefore could be defeated by delay resulting from his acquiescence. Winkfield J., purportedly
decided the case on laches but the learned judge relied on a proposition which is more consistent
with proprietary estoppel than with laches. See further, Ukwa v. Awka Local Council (1966)
N.M.L.R. 41, where laches was confused with estoppel.
Pennigton, J., in his dissenting judgment, attempted to distinguish between acquiescence as integral
part of estoppel and acquiescence as an element in laches. He said:
'Acquiescence may defined as acquiescence under such circumstances as that assent may be
reasonably inferred from it and is no more than an instance of the law of estoppel by words or
conduct. But when once the act completed without any knowledge or without any assent on
the part of the person whose right infringed, the matter is to be determined on very different
legal consideration .... Mere submission the injury for any time short of the period limited by
statute for the enforcement of the right of action cannot take away such right, although under
the name of laches it may afford a ground for refusing relief under particular circumstances.'
See Aganran v, Olushi (supra) at 68.
Thus, as Betuel, J. stated in Nzekwu v. Nwakobi (l960) IV E.N.L.R. 59 at 69, acquiescence is used in
two senses: in one case, it means that a person abstains from interfering while his legal rights are being violated: in another sense, it means he takes no steps to enforce his rights when a violation of his
rights, of which he did not know at the time, is brought to his notice. In the first case, the term acquiescence forms an integral part of estoppel; in the second case, the person is said to be guilty of
culpable delay, that is, laches of which acquiescence is an important element. Therefore, acquies180
cence in the first sense operates by way an implied waiver resulting from the fact that the owner of
the right which has been violated, has failed to assert it with promptitude. See further, Finn v. Ayeni
(1964) N.M.L.R 130 at 133; Taiwo v. Taiwo (1956) 3 F.S.C. 80 at 82.
Acquiescence, as an integral part of proprietary estoppel, implies fraud which is the basis of the equity in favour of the person who has expended money on the land: the owner of the land should not
stand by and allow another person who thinks the land is his to make improvements; he wants to
take the improvements and thereby cheat the other person of the expense he is making. See Ukwa v.
Awka Local Council (supra) at 46. But in laches, acquiescence implies negligence or indolence on the
part of a person to assert his right with promptitude after such right has been violated. See Lord
Camden in Smith v. Clay (1767) 3 Bro. C.C. 639n at 40n.
Generally it may be stated that so far, the scope of proprietary estoppel is limited to cases where
money is expended on land through the passive or active acquiescence of the true owner of the land;
though there is no reason why the doctrine should not be applied to any other type of property on
which money has been so expended. Laches, on the other hand, is of a more flexible application in
that it applies to a variety of cases and circumstances either to bar claim to specific equitable relief
or the exercise of general equitable jurisdiction. See Lord Selbourne in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd
(1874) L.R 5 P.C. 221 at 239-40.
Whenever the defence of proprietary estoppel is sustained, it binds not only the parties to the action
but also their successors-in-title. As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated in Nwakobi
v. Nzekwu (1964) 1 W.L.R 1019 at 1024, estoppel given the words or acts upon which a defendant
has relied and altered his position, bars the remedy from that time on, both in the hands of the original actor and in the hands of those who claim title through him, unlike laches which, in essence, is a
personal disqualification, binding only the parties to the action and not their successors-in-title.
3.3
Circumstances warranting the invocation of the doctrine are not in doubt. Delay in asserting ones
right is an important factor though not necessarily the controlling factor; where the defence against
the relief sought by the plaintiff is founded upon mere delay and the delay does not amount to abar
of the relief by any statute of limitations, the court will proceed to consider the length of the delay,
the inadequacy or unsatisfactory nature of the explanation of the delay, the nature of the acts done
during the interval, that is, the degree of change which has occurred and whether in the circumstances the balance of justice or injustice is in favour of granting the remedy or withholding it.
In Agbeyebe v. Ikomi (l953) 12 W.A.C.A. 383 at 386, the plaintiff's action to set aside the sale of his
property was in 1938 struck out by the Court. He did not take any further proceedings until 1947
when he moved the Supreme Court to re-list the suit which had been struck out in 1938. He gave, as
reasons for the undue delay, the death of his legal advisers, his own illness and the difficulties of ascertaining his true position in the matter. But during the interval the defendant had rebuilt and occupied the property. The decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the plaintiff was reversed by the
West African Court of Appeal on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of laches.
On appeal to the Privy Council, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council agreed with the decision of the West African Court of Appeal. The length of the delay, the inadequacy of the explanation
of the delay, and the consequences of setting aside the sale as against the defendant who was a bona
fide purchaser for value and who had been in occupation of the' land during the whole period of nine
years and had apparently altered the buildings thereon caused a balance of justice in favour of the
181
defendant within the meaning of laches as expanded by Lord Selbourne in Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Hurd (1874) L.R. 5 P.C. 221.
The doctrine operates to bar a variety of claims for equitable reliefs, for example, specific performance, injunction, rescission etc. These are special reliefs in equity and will only be given on condition of the plaintiff coming with great promptitude or as soon as the nature of the case will admit.
Any substantial delay after negotiations have terminated and the cause of action has arisen - such as
a year or probably less may be a bar. Thus, in Ibeziako v. Abutu (1959) III E.N.L.R. 24 at 27, a party
to an agreement and who was clearly entitled to an order for specific performance of the agreement
was denied the remedy because of his failure to claim the remedy with promptitude.
In Ephraim v. Asuquo (1923) 4 N.L.R 98 at 99, a claim by the plaintiff to revoke a decree made in favour of the'defendant two years after the decree had been made was rejected on the ground that the
plaintiff and his people were guilty of laches for they had every opportunity of opposing the grant, of
which opportunity they did not avail themselves. 'If they were anxiously desirous of administering
the estate, why did they wait a whole year to make the first move, and why did they wait another
twelve months before getting the case on the hearing list?' They showed no anxiety to get the hearing
expedited, and in the interval the defendant had already administered the estate which was ready for
distribution. It would be inequitable if the relief sought were to be granted.
In T. Taylor & Ors. v. Kingsway & Nigerian Properties (1965) N.M.L.R. 103 at 105, the plaintiffs
brought this action for recovery of possession of a property situate in Lagos. The delay in bringing
the action was twentyfive years, during which from time to time, the defendants had spent vast sums
of money on building and improving what are now known as the Kingsway Stores, in the belief that
they had the fee simple; the plaintiffs knew of that belief as far back as 1938, but they gave no explanation at the trial on why they stood by during those twenty-five years. The Supreme Court held
that the defence of laches was sufficiently established to defeat the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of
possession. The fact that the plaintiffs were remainder-men at the time the property was acquired by
the defendants was not a satisfactory explanation for the delay, since they could have brought an action at that time or thereafter to assert their estate and thereby prevented the defence of laches being
set up against them. See Wheelright v. Walker (1883) 23 Ch.D. 752.
3.4
Laches and Customary Law
The doctrine has also been invoked to lessen the rigours and hardships which would have resulted in
the strict application of certain rules of customary law; otherwise it would have been an intolerable
injustice, for example, to deprive a person and his successors in title of a property which they have
occupied and developed for half a century or more simply because customary law does not recognise
adverse possession.
The general principle was stated by Speed, Ag. C.J. in the early case of Lewis v. Bankole (1908) 1
N.L.R. 81 at 83-84. 'The rules of equity are, or ought to be, perfectly well known to this court, and if
a native law or custom is found to be repugnant to the fundamental rules of equity it is absolutely the
duty of the court to ignore it. Thus, any attempt to revive an obviously stale claim, to constitute a
state of affairs which has been openly or tacitly abandoned by all concerned, to upset a settlement
which has been acquiesced in by all parties for a long time and upon which all parties have by mutual even though tacit consent acted for a number of years, is repugnant to the fundamental rules of
equity and should not be countenanced by this court on the ground that it is in accordance with native law or custom, however harmless and admirable that native law or custom may be. In essence,
the courts will not allow the strict rules of customary law to be invoked in cases when the effect is, in
182
equity, unjust. See Nchiraheme Kojo Ado v. Buoyemhene Nwandwo Wusu (1938) 4 W.A.C.A. 96 at
99.
The rule of customary law of property that the original owner of land who has not specifically divested himself of his ownership can, after any length of time and under any circumstances obtain recovery of his land from persons setting up adverse title, whatever may be the detriment caused to
such persons by the fact that the original owner chose to sleep on his rights, will not now be applied
in its entirety. See Bokitsi Case (1902) Sarbah's F.L.R. 159 at 160; (1902) Renner Reports at 239. In
Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam (1913) 2 N.L.R. 100 at 101, the Full Court refused to give effect to this
rule of customary law because the defendants had been in undisturbed possession for a number of
years with the knowledge and acquiescence of the plaintiffs' ... it would be wholly inequitable to deprive the defendants of property of which they have held undisputed possession and in respect of
which they have collected rents for so long a term of years with the knowledge and acquiescence of
those who now dispute their title, even if it were as clear as it is upon the evidence doubtful that they
entered into possession, contrary to the principles of native law.'
The proposition is a modification of the strict rule that there is no prescriptive title known to customary law; the Courts on the grounds of equity will not allow a party to call in aid strict principles of
customary law for the purpose of bolstering up a stale claim. See Rihawi v. Aromashodun (1952) 14
W.A.C.A. 204 at 207. In Fiscian v. Nelson (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 21 at 22, the plaintiff's claim was for
a declaration of title to a land which the defendant had occupied for 30 years during which period he
had erected dwelling-houses. It was held by the West African Court of Appeal that a true-owner
would not be allowed to claim land where he had stood by for a long time while someone else occupied the land, and incurred pecuniary commitments under the impression that he was entitled to the
land, notwithstanding that prescription is unknown to customary law and that no statutory limitation
applies to the case.
Surely it is just and equitable to hold it inequitable to deprive persons of property of which they have
held undisputed possession for many years and to decide that the knowledge and acquiescence of the
person who originally owned the land may fairly be presumed. See Suleman v. Johnson (1951) 13
W.A.C.A 213 at 214. The original owner has created a position in which it would be inequitable to
hold that he is now entitled to rely upon customary law to support his claim to any rights of ownership whatever. See Akuru v. Olubadan-in-Council (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 523, 525.
This modification of the strict rule of customary law by the equitable doctrine of laches started in an
obiter dictum. See Bokitsi Case (supra). It has been followed in many decisions, and the rule it enunciated is now well established. See the following cases: Akpan Awo v. Cookey Gam (1913) 2 N.L.R
100; Miller v. Kwayisi (l930) 1 W.A.C.A. 7; Adu v. Kuma (1937)3 W.A.C.A. 240; Ilori v. Oloto
(1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 154; Rihawi v. Aromashodun (1952) 14 W.A.CA 204; Akuru v. Olubadan (1954)
14 W.A.C.A. 523; Abey v. Ollenu (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 567; Saidi v. Automobile Co. Ltd. (1956) 1
F.S.C. 107; Odutola v. Akande (1960) 5 F.S.C. 142; Ogundimu v. Adeoshun (1964) L.L.R 233.
Staleness of the real owner's claim after a long period of time during which acquiescence may be express or implied is an important factor grounding the defence of laches, for it would be unreasonable
and indeed inequitable after the lapse of so many years to expect the adverse claimant to be able to
prove his case. See Oloto v. Attorney-General (1957) 2 F.S.C. 74, 83.
Onus of Proof
When the defence pleads acquiescence, it is not for the plaintiff to prove there had been none, but for
183
the defendant to prove the acquiescence. See Alade v. Aborishade (1960) 5 F.S.C. 167, 171; Odunsi
v. Kuforiji (1948) 19 N.L.R. 7.
3.5
Limit of the Doctrine
Acquiescence is an important factor upon which the doctrine of laches is founded. Therefore, the
doctrine will not be applied where there is no acquiescence, express or implied on the part of the
true owner in the defendant's assumption of the right in dispute. See Tobias Epelle v. Ojo (1926) 7
N.L.R. 96, 97. In Akeju v. Suenu (1925) 6 N.L.R. 87, the plaintiff sought to set aside a conveyance of
family property which was made without his knowledge or consent. The defence of lying by was
rejected because the plaintiff took all reasonable and proper steps to protect his interests as soon as
he learnt that the property was being dealt with without his authority.
Similarly, the doctrine will not be applied where the defendant had sufficient warning as to the status of the property and the right of the plaintiff therein; in that case the defendant was not led by
the conduct of the plaintiff to alter his position with respect to the property. See Olowu v. Desalu
(1955) 14 W.A.C.A. 662, 664; Alari v. Oyekunle (1961) W.N.L.R. 281; Adeniji v. Ogunbiyi (1965)
N.M.L.R 395. In Ukwa & Ors. v. Awka Local Council (1966) N.M.L.R. 47, the defence was rejected
as there was no evidence that the person claiming the defence had changed his position or taken
any irrevocable step which would make it inequitable to permit the real owner to assert his title or
dominion over the land in dispute.
Acquiescence may also be inferred from long possession of the property in dispute. However, in
order to ground a defence of long possession showing acquiescence on the part of the true owner
of the property, it is necessary to show that such possession as is relied upon was adverse and of
such character that the true owner would be deemed to have actual or constructive notice of the
defendant's adverse but long and uninterrupted possession. See Maji v. Shaft (1965) N.M.L.R 33,
36-7.
An uninterrupted possession for a period of five years may not be enough to ground the equitable
defence of long possession showing acquiescence unless the defendant had within that period, altered his position that it would be inequitable to permit the true-owner to assert his title. See Solagbade v. Ayankoya (1962) W.N.L.R. 85, 87. But an undisturbed possession for upwards of seventeen years is sufficient to ground acquiescence - See Lateju v. Lanihun (1958) W.N.L.R. 106
at 108. 'The period of time which will justify the court in inferring acquiescence varies greatly according to the circumstances, including the nature of the improvements effected on the land.
Where there are crops naturally a longer period would ordinarily be required than in the case of a
substantial building'. See Fiscian v. Nelson (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 21 at 22.
Pledge
Under customary law land subject to pledge is perpetually redeemable; therefore, a pledgee cannot
rely on laches for purposes of claiming ownership of the land. See Kofi v. Kofi (1933) 1 W.A.C.A.
284. In Leragun v. Funlayo (1955-56) W.N.L.R. 167, Irwin J., held that lapse of time for more than
30 years is not a bar to the recovery of land which has been pledged.
Laches and Matrimonial Causes
In a matrimonial cause for divorce, the court is not bound to pronounce a decree of divorce and
may dismiss the petition if it finds that the petitioner has been guilty of unreasonable delay in
184
presenting or prosecuting the petition. As Bairamian J.S.C. explained in Enekebe v. Enekebe

(1964) 1 All NLR 102 at 105, this is intended to make a spouse diligent in presenting his or her
petition, for it is in the public interest that he or she should be diligent; and that a husband who is
late in petitioning may well give ground for the view that he has acquiesced in the misconduct of
his wife or is indifferent to the loss of her company. See sections 26, 28(c) & 37(b) Matrimonial
Causes Act, Vol. 8, Cap. M7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
This shows the extent to which the court can make use of the doctrine of laches with a view to
discouraging stale demands which may sometimes be difficult to establish or rebut owing to possible loss or destruction of evidence.
Statutes of Limitation
The Limitation Decree does not derogate from the importance of the doctrine oflaches. Indeed,
the Decree gives statutory recognition to the jurisdiction of the court to refuse relief on the
ground of laches. Section 2 of Decree No. 88 of 1966 provides 'Nothing in this Decree shall affect any equitable jurisdiction to refuse relief on the ground of acquiescence or otherwise.'
In Muomah v. Spring Bank Plc (2009) 3 NWlR (Pt. 1129) p. 553, on nature of statute of limitation and rationale therefor, the Court of Appeal held that:
The law on limitation of actions is the pivot upon which the wheel of litigation rotates
and the ruthless watchmsn that guards the gates to the sanctuary of justice. The Statute of
Limitation is therefore an act of peace based on the principle that long dormant claims
have more of cruelty than justice in them, as the defendant might have lost the evidence to
disprove a statement of claim and that persons with good causes of action should pursue
them with reasonable diligence. The reasoning of the statute of Limitation is that greater
injustice is likely to be done by allowing stale claims than by refusing them a hearing on
the merit.
On determination of period of limitation, see the case of Odum v. Uganden & Ors. (2009) 9
NWLR (Pt. 1146) 281 where it was held as follows:
The period of limitation in any statute of limitation is determined by looking at the writ
of summons and the statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed which
gave rise to the cause of action, and by comparing that date with the date on which the
writ of summons was filed. In the instant case, to determine if the action is statute barred,
it is the date the respondents, now possessed of the land, got the land that has to be compared with the date of filing of the case, for the purpose of determining whether or not the
said action is statute barred.
In Kumaila v. sheriff & Ors. (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) p. 420, it was held that time begins to
run when there is an existence a person who can sue and another who can be sued, and all facts
have happened shech are materials to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. In determining
whether an action is statute barred, it is important to first determine when time began to run.
On what laches denotes and the distinction between laches and statute of limitation, see Chukwu
v. Amadi (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) p. 56, where the Court held as follows:
1.
Where a statute prescribes a specific period for the filing of an action in a Court of law,
any action filed after the expiration of the period is null and void. Such period of limitation starts to run from the very date the cause of action arose.
185
2.
What determines whether or not a cause of action is statute barred is the writ of summons
or statement of claim alluding to the date the cause of action accrued and the date of filing
the suit.
3.
Laches denotes an equitable principle by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has
unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting the claim where the granting of such
relief would be unfair or unjust.
4.
The difference between laches and statute of limitation is very thin. The doctrine of laches
like the statutes of limitation in their conclusive effects are employed to promote justice
by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber
until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.
See also Unity bank Plc v. Nwadike (2009) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1131) p. 352.
3.6
He who comes into Equity must come with Clean Hands
This flexible equitable defence speaks for itself. The early chancery jurisdiction was largely influenced by good faith, clear conscience and honest dealings; hence the Chancery Court of that period
was designated as a court of conscience. Reliefs sought from and granted by the Chencery were predicated on and dictated by conscience; correspondingly, a suitor in equity would only be entitled to
such reliefs if his conduct in the transaction had not been contrary to equity and good conscience. In
spite of the transformation of early flexible equity jurisdiction to that of a rigid system, the 'clean
hands doctrine' remains a significant manifestation of the ethical attitude of equity; while equity continues to enforce good faith in defendants, it no less stringently demands the same good faith from
plaintiffs. See Chafee C., Some Problems of Equity (Cooley Lectures, Univesity of Michigan Law
School 1950) p. 1.
3.7
The doctrine operates in a variety of legal relationships: for example, enforcement of contracts,
trusts, interests in land and even actions founded on torts and matrimonial causes. Indeed, 'the extent
of the application of the maxim appears to be limitless - this is only due to its basic character and its
value to all phases of equity. Throughout the equitable fields of fraud, illegality, and acts involving
unconscionable conduct, the situations are few which cannot be definitely governed by the "clean
hands" doctrine.' See 9 Temple L.Q. 220 at 226 (1935).
In the realm of contract, neither at law nor in equity will the court lend its aid in carrying out and
completing an illegal contract. The court will not entertain a claim for damages or compensation
for the breach of an illegal contract and, of course, no court of equity will decree specific performance of or grant any equitable relief in such contract. As Jessel M.R. explained in Sykes v. Beadon (1879) 11 Ch.D. 170 at 196, 'if two persons go partner as smugglers, can one maintain a bill
against the other to have an account of the smuggling transaction? I should say certainly not ... It is
no part of the duty of a Court of Justice to aid either in carrying out an illegal contract, or in dividing the proceeds arising from an illegal contract, between the parties to that illegal contract.'
Equitable relief will be refused if the party seeking the relief is guilty of inequitable conduct with
respect to the transaction upon which the relief sought is based, even though the transaction is in
itself valid at law. Specific performance of a contract will be denied at the suit of a party who is
186
guilty of sharp practice in the formation of the contract. In Cadman v. Horner (1810) 18 Ves. 10 at
11; 34 E.R. 221, there was a contract for the sale of land between the vendor and the purchaser.
The vendor had relied on the purchaser for the proper valuation of the property. The purchaser,
who was aware of the trust reposed in him, grossly undervalued the property. In an action for specific performance of the contract it was held that the purchaser had abused his fiduciary position
by misrepresenting the value of the property to the vendor and was therefore not entitled to specific performance. The fact that the agreed price was adequate was in itself not sufficient; the purchaser's abuse of his fiduciary position was an inequitable conduct which 'disqualifies him from
calling for the aid of a Court of Equity, where he must come, as it is said, with clean hands.'
Similarly, in Viatonu v. Odutayo and Kuyoro (1950) 19 N.L.R. 119, the purchaser of a mortgaged
property was denied the right to recover possession of the property on the ground that he had been
a party to the fraudulent auction sale at which the property was sold at an undervalue.
A beneficiary under a trust and who concurs in a breach of the trust cannot come afterwards to
complain of the breach; his right of action against the trustee for the breach is only in equity, and
since equity will only grant relief to those who come to it with clean hands, the beneficiary would
be denied relief because of his past inequitable conduct in concurring to the breach. See Re Deane
(1889) 42 Ch.D. 9, 19. In Pratt v. Haffner (1959) 4 F.S.C. 82, the trustee of the estate of late Dr.
Henry Carr made a voidable lease of the trust property; plaintiff, one of the beneficiaries sought to
set aside the lease after he had derived considerable benefit from the lease of which grant he was
fully aware. The relief was denied; having derived benefit from the lease and with full knowledge
of the transaction, the beneficiary was deemed to have adopted it.
Where a husband purchases property in the name of his wife, there is presumption of advancement
in favour of the wife. But this presumption can be displaced by a presumption of a resulting trust in
favour of the husband if there is evidence that the husband intends that the property is to be held by
his wife on trust for himself. See generally, Snell's Principles of Equity (17th Ed.) p. 175. However,
where such evidence is based on fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the husband, equity will
not presume a resulting trust in his favour.
In Gascoigne v. Gascoigne (1918) 1 K.B. 223 at 226, a husband took a lease of land in his wife's
name and built a house upon it with his own money. He used his wife's name in the transaction with
her knowledge and connivance because he was in debt and was desirous of protecting the property
from his creditors. In an action by the husband against his wife for a declaration that she held the
property as trustee for him, it was held 'that he could not be allowed to set up his own fraudulent design to rebut the presumption that the conveyance was intended as a gift to the wife, and that she
was entitled to retain the property for her own use, notwithstanding that she was a party to the fraud.
But for the clean hands doctrine, a presumption of a resulting trust in favour of the husband would
have enabled him to benefit from his fraud. See also, Re Emery's Investment Trusts. (1959) Ch. 410;
Kojo Adjepon v. Kwaku Fokuo (1945) 11 W.A.C.A. 67.
The flexible character of the doctrine can be seen in the variety of inequitable conduct that can give
rise to its invocation, thus giving credence to the view that the 'doctrine is rooted in the historical
concept of equity as a vehicle for affirmatively enforcing the requirements of conscience and good
faith.' Per Justice Murphy in Precesion Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co. 324 U.S. 806 at 814 (1945).
In Menikiti v. Agina (1965) N.M.L.R. 127 at 129, plaintiff and defendant were joint beneficiaries of
a property under their mother's will. Both agreed to partition the property before the will was
187
proved. The defendant, who had sold his own portion, contended that the sale was valid since the
property had been partitioned. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claimed that there had been no partition
and that it was a joint-tenancy under which the defendant had no power to sell any part of the property. He therefore, sought to set aside the sale made by the defendant. It was found by the Court that
the property had, in fact, been partitioned illegally because the will had not been proved in accordance with the law; that the plaintiff had agreed to the partition when she thought she could purchase the defendant's share, and that she now brought this action after she had failed to purchase the
defendant's share because of the disagreement on the purchase price.
Kaine J., refused to make the order and stated 'I have to say that the plaintiff and the defendant having constituted themselves into executors de son tort and after the illegal distribution of the property
of the testatrix have now landed themselves in Court seeking for a legal remedy. I am of the opinion
that to grant them any remedy would tantamount to a condonation. To set aside a sale and declare a
Conveyance null and void is an equitable remedy which cannot be granted if appropriate unless the
party seeking the remedy comes with a clean hand.'
The doctrine is equally relevant in matrimonial causes. In Craig v. Craig (1942) 16 N.L.R. 103, W
sought a dissolution of her marriage with H on the ground of H's adultery and cruelty. W had been
guilty of adultery herself but did not confess this in her petition and the Court found that the neglect to do so was a deliberate suppression of the truth. H, in a counter petition based on W's adultery, admitted he had been guilty of adultery and prayed the Court to exercise its discretion in his
favour. It was held in the circumstances, the petitioner's action must be dismissed because of his
inequitable conduct and that the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of H and H's counter-petition was granted.
In Kellogg v. Kellogg 171 Mich. 518 at 520 (1912); 137 N.W. 249 (1912), where W sued for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty and H crosspetitioned on the ground of extreme cruelty
and adultery, Judge Stone, in dismissing both petitions, said: 'Divorce is a remedy for the innocent as against the guilty, and should not be granted where both parties are at fault. This is no
more than the application of the equitable rule that one who invokes the aid of a court must come
into it with a clear conscience and clean hands'. Though an extreme use of the doctrine, which if
pushed to its logical conclusion may tend to perpetuate a relationship which is obviously inimical to the interest of both parties and that of the public, it, nevertheless demonstrates the very
flexible character of the clean hands doctrine.
Even in the realm of customary law the efficacy of the doctrine has not been found wanting. In
his dissenting judgment in Eshugbayi v. Dawuda (1909) 1 N.L.R. 7 at 62, Pennington J., observed
that a person seeking to enforce native law and custom in respect of one transaction must himself have carried out native law and custom relating to that transaction; otherwise, his claim may
be denied on the basis of 'clean hands doctrine.'
3.8 The Scope of 'Clean Hands'

The rule is that the inequitable conduct that will amount to unclean hands must be related to the
transaction involved in the action before the Court; this is similar to the common law principle
that the court will not entertain an action that is premised on illegality, though in equity, inequitable conduct which will amount to unclean hands need not be illegal in the strict sense, as required
at law, it is sufficient if the conduct is unconscionable and morally reprehensible. The inequitable
conduct need not have been to the other party to the action. For example, where a husband conveyed property to his wife so as to protect the property from his creditors, an action by the hus188
band to claim the property back from the wife may be denied on the ground of his inequitable
conduct to his creditors. See Gascoigne v. Gascoigne (supra).
The position is the same where a partner in crime brought an action seeking the aid of the Court to
compel his co-partner to account for the proceeds of their criminal activities. See Highwayman's
Case (1893) 9 L.Q. Rev. 197. The basis of the doctrine is to prevent a party from employing the
machinery of the court to enforce the advantage of his inequitable conduct. However, that a person must come into a Court of Equity with clean hands does not mean that a person seeking relief
in court must have a blameless or transparent record; it does not mean general depravity (see Dering v. Winchelsea (1787) 1 Cox Eq. 318 at 319); for equity does not demand that its suitors shall
have had blameless lives. Per Justice Brandeis in Loughran v. Loughran 292 U.S. 216 at 229
(1934). A person does not become an outlaw and lose all rights by doing an illegal act. Per Justice
Holmes in National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423 at 425 (1903). He is denied relief
only if his reproachable or inequitable conduct has an immediate and necessary relation to the relief sought from the Court. See Dering v. Winchelsea (supra).

What do you understand by the scope of clean hands?
4.0
CONCLUSION
The exercise of this equitable jurisdiction, like all others, is discretionary and, in the usual manner, the discretion may not be exercised arbitrarily. No doubt, there is much similarity between
laches and equitable estoppel; hence the tendency on the part of the courts to confuse one with
the other. The basis of this confusion seems to be the question of acquiescence which is common
to both doctrines. Equitable relief will be refused if the party seeking the relief is guilty of inequitable conduct with respect to the transaction upon which the relief sought is based, even though
the transaction is in itself valid at law. That a person must come into a Court of Equity with clean
hands does not mean that a person seeking relief in court must have a blameless or transparent
record. He is denied relief only if his reproachable or inequitable conduct has an immediate and
necessary relation to the relief sought from the Court.
5.0
SUMMARY
In this unit, we have considered the equitable defence of laches and aquiscence; and the maxim
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. You should now be able to: explain the
equitable defence of laches and acquiescence; distinguish between proprietary estoppel and laches; explain laches and customary law; describe the maxim He who comes to equity must come
with clean hands and its operation; and define the scope of clean hands.
6.0
Explain the maxim He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
7.0
Cap. M7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

189
190

Law 423 Equity and Trust I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law 423 Equity and Trust I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Law 423 Equity and Trust I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main topics covered in the course?

What are the main topics covered in the course?

What are maxims of equity?

What are maxims of equity?

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

Equity and Trust I

Equity and Trusts I

Mrs. Omotayo T. Abisoye

Dr. Taiwo E. Adewale

Ifidon Oyakhiromen, PhD. BL

Mr. Kunle Aina (sabbatical)

Course Coordinators: O Abisoye (Mrs.), O. Lawal, C. Hia

General Principles of Equity I

General Principles of Equity I

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

Trace the origin of equity;

Law and equity

subjects and the whole realm.

period without being aware of it.

This would often be in consequence of a voluntary undertaking by Y, but sometimes it would

What do you understand by the term equity?

Difference and conflict

Equity and the common law in the narrow sense

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 6th edition

INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITY INTO NIGERIA

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

How were the doctrines of Equity introduced into Nigeria?

Repugnancy doctrine and customary law

various needs of successive generations of English people.

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

Jegede M. I. (2007rep.) Principles of Equity; Ibadan: Unique Design/Prints

THE RELATION BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW

By the end of this unit, you should be able to:

outline the opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction;

Opposition to the Chancery Jurisdiction

Effect of the Kings Decision

Judicature Acts 1873-1875

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

CONFLICTS BETWEEN EQUITY AND LAW

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

Effect of the Judicature Acts, 1873-1875

3.2.1 Fusion of Rules or Fusion of Administration

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

NATURE OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS I

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

Define equitable rights;

Explain how judgements are enforced.

Equitable Rights: Rights in Personam or in Rem

Chancery would not by itself execute the conveyance.

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

NATURE OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS II

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

The nature of the Rights of a Beneficiary under a Trust

SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1

REFERENCES / FURTHER READING

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY II

By the end of this unit you should be able to:

There are twelve generally accepted maxims. They are as follows: