LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EQUITY AND TRUSTS – Laches – Plaintiff’s Vigilance – Institution of Prior Action Negatives Acquiescence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
With the above finding, the only option open to the learned trial Judge was to have rejected the respondent's defences of laches and acquiescence which lacked any pivot to stand upon. Since the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of a witness, I think the admission of the defendant that the plaintiff had earlier sued him is admissible to negative his plea of acquiescence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Kayode v. Odutola (2001) NLC-1451997(SC) at pp. 20–21; Paras D–B.
"With the above finding, the only option open to the learned trial Judge was to have rejected the respondent's defences of laches and acquiescence which lacked any pivot to stand upon. Since the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of a witness, I think the admission of the defendant that the plaintiff had earlier sued him is admissible to negative his plea of acquiescence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Institution of a prior action by the plaintiff negatives any defence of laches or acquiescence. Vigilance, not delay, is demonstrated by earlier legal action. The defendant’s admission that the plaintiff had previously sued him is admissible to rebut acquiescence. Cross-examination can properly elicit such admissions. A plaintiff who actively pursues legal remedies cannot be accused of sleeping on their rights. The defence of laches requires unreasonable delay; prior litigation contradicts that claim. Acquiescence requires knowing inaction; prior action shows the opposite. The principle prevents defendants from asserting acquiescence where the plaintiff has been proactive in protecting their rights.
