The doctrine of estoppel is that where a party has, by words or by conduct, made a representation to another leading him to believe in the existence of a particular fact or state of facts, and that other person has acted on the faith of such representation, the party who made the representation is not afterwards to be heard to say that the facts were not as he represented them to be. West v. Jones (1851) 61 E.R. 79.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to create a cause of action. It is limited to matters of defense and can only be used as a shield and not as a sword. Though the principle is limited to matters of defense, it may be invoked by either the defendant or the plaintiff. What is essential to the application of the principle is that there must be an independent cause of action.
The substance of the doctrine is that a litigant who has unreasonably slept over his right may not be granted equitable relief in respect of the right particularly where the granting of such relief will result in hardship to the other party who has acquired the right.
The doctrine of laches and acquiescence may be invoked where the conduct or neglect of the plaintiff indicates to the defendant a waiver of the plaintiff’s rights, which rights have been acquired by the defendant.
The circumstances warranting the invocation of the doctrine were aptly stated by the Supreme Court. The court stated that in considering the equitable doctrine of laches, the court does not act only on the delay by the plaintiff, but must also consider acquiescence on the plaintiff's part, and any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part. Fagbemi v. Aluko (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 233.
Acquiescence is usually used in two senses. In the one hand, it means that a person abstains from interfering while his legal rights are being violated and on the other hand, it means he takes no steps to enforce his rights when a violation of his rights, of which he did not know at the time, is brought to his notice. In the first case, the term acquiescence forms an integral part of estoppel; in the second case, the person is said to be guilty of culpable delay, that is, laches of which acquiescence is an important element. Therefore, acquiescence in the first sense operates by way an implied waiver resulting from the fact that the owner of the right which has been violated, has failed to assert it with promptitude. **Nzekwu v. Nwakobi** (l960) IV ENLR 59.
Acquiescence is an important factor upon which the doctrine of laches is founded. Therefore, the doctrine will not be applied in the following circumstances:
a. Where there is no acquiescence, express or implied on the part of the true owner in the defendant’s assumption of the right in dispute. Akeju v. Suenu (1925) 6 N.L.R. 87. b. The doctrine will also not be apply where the defendant had sufficient warning as to the status of the property and the right of the plaintiff therein. In this case, the defendant was not led by the conduct of the plaintiff to alter his position with respect to the property. Alari v. Oyekunle (1961) WNLR. 281.
Under customary law, land subject to pledge is perpetually redeemable. Therefore, a pledgee cannot rely on laches for purposes of claiming ownership of the land. There is no time bar to recovery of a land which has been pledged. Kofi v. Kofi (1933) 1 W.A.C.A. 284.
The difference between laches and statute of limitation is very thin. The doctrine of laches like the statutes of limitation in their conclusive effects are employed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. Chukwu v. Amadi (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 56. The following however are to be noted as between the doctrine of laches and Statutes of Limitation:
a. Laches denotes an equitable principle by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting the claim where the granting of such relief would be unfair or unjust. b. Where a statute prescribes a specific period for the filing of an action in a Court of law, any action filed after the expiration of the period is null and void. Such period of limitation starts to run from the very date the cause of action arose. c. What determines whether or not a cause of action is statute barred is the writ of summons or statement of claim alluding to the date the cause of action accrued and the date of filing the suit.