STANDING BY, LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "If a person builds on the land of another knowing him to be owner thereof, there is no principle in equity which would prevent the owner from claiming the land with the benefit of all the expenditure on it. This rule of law was echoed by Cranworth, L.C. over a century ago in the case of Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129. It is still the law here and the customary law of Yoruba land enforces it rigidly. A proprietor of land was not debarred from asserting his legal right against one who was shown to have infringed it on the ground of acquiescence unless it was clear that at the time he acquiesced, he was aware of his proprietary right. He does so justifiably where there is no evidence of acquiescence. See Armstrong v. Sheppard & Short Ltd. (1959) 2 Q.B. 384. The facts of that case go to show the extent to which the Court will entertain a complaint of infringement of legal rights, which were not known to the complainant at the time of their infringement. According to the head note, the plaintiff owned a small piece of land at the rear of his premises on which the defendants had entered and constructed a sewer and effluent. The plaintiff claimed damages for trespass and an injunction to restrain the discharge of effluent through the sewer. He swore that he had never had any conversation with the defendants about the matter. The County Court Judge found as a fact first that the plaintiff had orally informed the defendants that he did not object to the construction of the sewer and secondly that the plaintiff, when he so stated, was not aware that he was the owner of the strip of land or that he had a right to object to the construction of the sewer. The Judge awarded to the plaintiff - 20 shillings damages for trespass but refused to grant the injunction. The plaintiff appealed and the defendants cross- appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court (Lord Evershed, M.R., Willmer, L.J. and Cassels, J.) held that a proprietor of land was not debarred from asserting his legal right, against one who was shown to have infringed it on the ground of acquiescence unless it was clear that at the time he acquiesced he was aware of his proprietory right and accordingly there was no equity which barred the plaintiff from asserting his legal title. The Court relied on the cases of Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129; Willmott v. Barber (1880) 15 Ch.D. 96. The Court also held that if a man having a proprietory right proved an infringement of it, he was prima facie entitled to an injunction but that was not an unqualified right and the grounds for denying the injunctions were: "(a) that the wrong done in the circumstances was trivial; (b) that he not only misled the defendants but attempted to mislead the Court and that on the facts the plaintiff had not proved any damage and should not be granted injunction. Dismissing the cross-appeal, the Court held: - (1) that if A gives authority to B for the doing of an act on his land and the act is done and completed then whatever be the description of the authority, it is generally too late to complain and...