Maxims of Equity

Author: Oni, Inioluwa Oluwanifemi

Matric Number: 23/12361

Course Code: LAW 101

Course Title: Legal Methods I

Lecturer: Dr. Itunu

Due Date: November 7, 2023

 Definition of Maxims of Equity

In order to understand the combination of maxim and equity. Equity developed in

reaction to the excesses of common law. The maxims of equity are originally Latin phrases

that embody equitable principles. Providentially, maxims of equity are legal maxims that

serve as a governing body that guide the general principles that operate under equity. They

showcase the attributes of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible medium

to the needs of the individual.

5 Maxims of Equity

Now that we have established the definition, the following are 5 maxims of equity:

1. ) Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without remedy: This maxim of equity is similar

to the legal principle ‘ubi jus, ibi remedium’ (where there is a wrong, there is a remedy). It

simply provides that wherever there is a right conferred, should an injury occur, there should

be a co-existing remedy provided to soothe that injury by equity. Basically, when seeking an

equitable relief, the one that has been wronged has the stronger hand. The stronger hand is the

one that has the capacity to ask for a legal remedy (judicial relief). In equity, this form of

remedy is usually one of specific performance or an injunction (injunctive relief). These are

superior remedies to those administered at common law such as damages. Case law dealing

with this maxim include: Ashby vs White (K.B 1703), Egbert vs Boule (U.S 2022) etc. In

the case of Ashby vs White, a qualified voter was not allowed to vote. Despite this, the

candidate he wanted to vote for still won the election. Regardless of this, Ashby sued the

officer who prevented him from voting. In his defence, the officer contended that since his

candidate went on to win the election, no damage was done to the plaintiff and as such, no

remedy should be afforded to him. The courts held that in spite of no direct damage being

done to him, he had a right to vote and was denied that right. As such, where a right has been
breached, the law has to provide a remedy to resolve this breach of right. Thus birthing the

maxim “ubi jus, ibi remedium”.

2. Equity Aids the Vigilant and not the Indolent (Delay Defeats Equity): A person who

has been wronged must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights. Otherwise, they are

guilty of laches, an untoward delay in litigation with the presumed intent of denying claims.

In layman language, this simply means that if one seeks equitable relief due to some wrong,

he or she must act promptly or they may not get the needed attention from the court of law.

This differs from a statute of limitations, in that a delay is specific to individual situations,

rather than a general prescribed legal amount of time. In addition, even where a limitation

period has not yet run, laches may still occur. The equitable rule of laches and acquiescence

was first introduced in Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd. In the case of Chief

Young Dede vs African Association Ltd, the court held that although the Supreme Court

ordinance identified that Statutes of General Application are applied in England,

nevertheless, it should be taken to mean statutes applicable not just in England but throughout

the United Kingdom. Similarly, there are various Statutes of Limitation that epitomize this

maxim. For example, section 6 of the Limitation law Edo State (formerly Bendel State but

still applicable in Edo State), prescribes a six-year time limit for the commencement of a suit

for the enforcement of a contract or to redress a tortuous wrong. Similarly, with respect to

suit involving land on interests on land, a time line of twelve years is fixed. This maxim is

further epitomized by the Latin legal phrase, ‘ius civile vigilantibus scriptum est’, it

translates to ‘civil law is written for the vigilant’.

3. Equity Follows The Law: The primary aim of equity is not obstruction of law or

contradiction of it. It seeks to bring an equilibrium. Thus since the initial origin of equity, the

Courts of Chancery never intended or claimed to override the common law. As such when a

rule is direct, clear and applicable to a certain case, the Courts of Chancery cannot deviate
from the ruling of common law courts. It should also be noted that just like the Courts of

Common Law, the Courts of Chancery are bound by provisions of a statute. If a statute is

clear and concise the courts of chancery have to follow the statutory provision. However,

equity would not follow the direct provisions of statute if it is used as an instrument of fraud.

This especially applies in cases like concealed fraud. For instance, the Limitations Act of

1966 provides that there is a 6 year period within which to bring actions related to contract or

tort. However, it is possible for a person to fraudulently breach a contract and conceal this

past the period of limitation. When this occurs, equity will not strictly apply the 6-year

provision of statute, but will instead start counting the period of limitation from the date the

fraud was discovered. An example of such case law is Michael Arowolo vs Chief Titus

Ifabiyi (2002) 2 SCNJ 65. In this case, the plaintiff borrowed a sum of money from the

defendant in 1978 and used his landed property as a mortgage for the loan. After paying back

the loan, he demanded for his property, but the defendant didn’t give him back the title

document. He continued requesting for it until the defendant confessed in 1987 that he used

the title document to get a loan from his own bank. As a result of this, the plaintiff sued to

recover his title document. The court found in his favour even though the contract between

the plaintiff and defendant was far back as 1978 (9 years before the action). The court

reasoned that the statute of limitation didn’t start counting from 1978. Rather, it started

counting from 1987 when the plaintiff discovered the fraud. This maxim is further expressed

as ’aequitas sequitur legem’, which means that “equity will not allow a remedy that is

contrary to law.”

4. Equity Acts In Personam: This maxim can be traced to the initial jurisdiction of the

Courts of law and the Courts of Chancery in that the former had jurisdiction on both persons

and property whilst the latter had jurisdiction on persons alone.

For instance, when enforcing judgments the Courts of Common Law could forcibly transfer

property that is judgement debt to the plaintiff. However, the Courts of Chancery don’t really

do this since they act in personam (against a person) and not in rem(against property). So,

instead of forcefully transferring the property, the Courts of Chancery normally acted against

the judgement debtor personally. This meant that he was either thrown in jail or held for

contempt of court till he complied with the court’s order. Subsequently, equity evolved to the

point where it created the order of sequestration to deal with parties who refused to comply

even when thrown in jail. the court appoints an officer to confiscate the property of the

judgement debtor till he either complies or until the debt is recovered. Equity acting in

personam is also quite useful when it comes to enforcing judgement in foreign jurisdictions.

If the property in question is not within the court’s jurisdiction, as long as the person is, the

courts can order her to implement its judgement. For example, in the case of Ayinule vs

Abimbola (1957) LLR 41, a Nigerian court granted an injunction preventing a person within

its jurisdiction from carrying out an act outside its jurisdiction. The courts of equity have

developed in such a way as to cover property assets as well but the primary focus remains

attaining justice for persons.

5. Equity will not allow a wrongdoer to profit by a wrong: This maxim is the basis for

much of the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the equitable remedy of restoring to

an aggrieved party that which was obtained in unjust enrichment or a remedy for a breach of

contract that consists of restoring the aggrieved party to the status quo that existed before the

contract was made. Case laws that exemplify this maxim include: Jehon v

Vivian (1876), Lord Chancellor Hatherley stated that “this court never allows a man to make

profit by a wrong.” Also, Root v. Railway Company (1881) where the U.S. Supreme Court
stated that “it would be inequitable that [a wrongdoer] should make a profit out of his own

wrong.”