EQUITY AND TRUSTS ā Estoppel ā Laches and Acquiescence ā Doctrine Inapplicable Where Plaintiff Promptly Warned Trespasser
Principle Statement
The respondent promptly warned the appellant to stop his trespass, but the appellant ignored the warning and continued with his building unabated. The respondent is not caught by the doctrine of laches, acquiescence, and standing by.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Onu, JSC, in Owie v. Ighiwi (2005) NLC-123-257-2000(SC) at pp. 16ā17; Paras EāA.
"On the appellant's alternative submission that the respondent is caught by the doctrine of laches, acquiescence and standing by, I agree with the respondent that he promptly warned the appellant to stop his trespass but that the appellant ignored the warning and continued with his building on the land unabated. The trial court as well as the lower court, in my opinion, properly evaluated the evidence in this regard. I am therefore, satisfied that the respondent is not caught by the doctrine of laches, acquiescence and standing by."
Explanation / Scope
Laches and acquiescence do not apply where the plaintiff promptly warned the trespasser to stop. Continued trespass despite warning shows the plaintiff did not sleep on his rights. The principle applies to equity and estoppel. The rule requires the plaintiff to act promptly; prompt warning defeats the defence of laches.
