Doctrine of Laches and Acquiescence; When Same Will not Avail a Party

CASE TITLE: IRONBAR v. OKON & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58726(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

​ This appeal borders on the declaration of title to land.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Cross River State sitting at Calabar delivered on the 7th February, 2014 by Hon. Justice Obojor A. Ogar in respect of Suit No: C/235/97.

A suit was commenced by one Princess Ukpong Offiong Eniang and Mr. Eyo Eneyo, being the 1st and 2nd Claimants (both of whom are deceased and substituted with the present Respondents in this appeal), by a writ of summons and an amended statement of claim in which they claimed against the Appellant, being the Defendant at the trial Court; N10, 000.00 general damages against the Defendant for trespass to the parcel of land known and called NO. 3 Mary Victor Akan, by 2, Chamley Street Calabar, an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant by himself, agents, privies or others by whatever name called from entering into the said land, the subject matter of the action, an order that the 1st Plaintiff with her family is the holder of the right of occupancy and the owner thereof of the parcel of land, the subject of the action amongst other reliefs.

The Appellant in response, counter-claimed for; the sum of N2,000,000.00 damages for trespass, N3,000,000.00 damages for slander, injunction to restrain the claimants, their servants, agents and assigns from continuing with the slander of the Defendant in the manner complained about or at all, a declaration that the land in dispute herein is the property of the Defendant’s and injunction to restrain the Claimants, their servants, agents and assigns from further interfering with the land in dispute herein being a corner plot and developments thereon at No. 3 Victor Akan Street/No. 2 Chamley Street Calabar. And more easily identified as the property within the certificate of occupancy No. CA/1356/82 commencing 1/1/82 and registered as No. 13 on page 13 in Volume 215 of the Lands Registry Office, Calabar.

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondents. He however refused one of the reliefs which were for an account or rent received on the disputed land on which the trial Judge held that he found no pleading or evidence to guide him in determining the said claim. The counter-claim of the Appellant was dismissed. Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. Also, the Respondents, dissatisfied with part of the judgment of the trial Court refusing the relief to order the Appellant to render rents received and for the possession of the disputed land, filed a cross-appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court of Appeal determined the main appeal on the following issues thus:

“1. Whether the Respondents as Claimants established their locus to sue on behalf of Princess Uduak Duke Ephraim’s Family and their evidence was supported by their pleadings.

2. Whether the principles of equity-like standing by, estoppel, laches and acquiescence and the Evidence Act were properly applied by the trial Court to this matter.

3. Whether the trial Court properly placed the onus of proof, evaluated and considered the exhibits and other evidence in this matter.

4. Whether the trial Court in ignoring the testimony of Princess Uduak Duke Ephraim leaving a will and going ahead to consider the oral tradition over ownership of the property justified.

5. Whether the trial Court was correct to dismiss the Appellant’s counterclaim?”

The cross-appeal was determined on the following issues thus:

“1. Whether the lower Court’s reasons for refusing to make an order touching on rent/account and possession of the subject matter by the Appellant/Defendant to the Respondents/Cross-Appellants was proper in the circumstances.

2. Whether the surreptitious taking over of the Client’s (Respondents/Cross-Appellants’) property, the subject matter of this legal representation amounted to a breach of solicitors/client fiduciary relationship which should be condemned by the bench and sanctioned by the Bar.

3. Whether the N10, 000.00 (ten thousand Naira only damages awarded by the lower Court and without cost and/or litigation cost was adequate and/or proper in the circumstance.”

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the main appeal was dismissed while the cross-appeal succeeded in part.

RATIOS:

• LAND LAW – LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE – Doctrine of laches and acquiescence
• LAND LAW – LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE – Instance(s) where the defence of laches and acquiescence will not avail a party
• LAND LAW – POSSESSION OF LAND – When can a person be said to have a right to possess the land
• LAND LAW – TITLE TO LAND – Position of law where two parties claim title to the disputed land
• ACTION – ANCILLARY/MAIN CLAIM(S) – Effect of an ancillary counterclaim where the main counterclaim fails