general principles of equity

The following are the maxims of equity:

• a. Equity follows the law: Equity only intervened when some important factor became ignored by the law.
• b. Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent: Where a party has slept on his right and has given the defendant the impression that he has waived his rights, the court of equity may refuse its assistance to the claimant. This is known as the doctrine of laches.
• c. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands: The assumption here is that the party claiming an equitable relief must demonstrate that he has not acted with impropriety in respect of the claim.
• d. Equality is equity: Where two or more parties have an interest in the same property but their respective interests have not been quantified, equity as a last resort may divide the interest equally.
• e. Equity looks at the intent and not the form: The court looks at the substance of an arrangement rather than its appearance in order to ascertain the intention of the parties.
• f. Where there is equal equity, the law will prevail: Equity did not intervene when, according to equitable principles, no injustice resulted in adopting the solution imposed by law.
• g. Equity looks as done that which ought to be done: If a person is under an obligation to perform an act which is specifically enforceable, the parties acquire the same rights and liabilities in equity as though the act had been performed.
• h. Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail: Where two persons have conflicting interests in the same property, the rule is that the first in time has priority at law and in equity.
• i. He who seeks equity must do equity: A party claiming equitable relief is required to act fairly towards his opponent.
• i. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill obligation: The principle here is based on the premise that if a party is under an obligation to perform an act and he performs an alternative but similar act, equity assumes that the second act was done with the intention of fulfilling the obligation.
• j. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without remedy: This maxim illustrates the intervention of the Court of Chancery to provide a remedy if none was obtainable at common law. At the same time it must not be supposed that every infringement of a right was capable of being remedied. The ‘wrongs’ which equity was prepared to invent new remedies to redress were those subject to judicial enforcement
• k. Equity acts in personam: Originally, equitable orders were enforced against the person of the defendant, with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. A later equitable invention permitted an order to be attached to the defendant’s property, that is, in rem.

The doctrine of bonafide purchaser for value without notice provides the most fundamental distinction between legal and equitable rights in property. The doctrine is equally important in the determination of priority between rival claimants of interests in property. The essence of the doctrine is that where a defendant has a better equity or a superior title, a court of equity will not deprive such defendant of any right of property, whether legal or equitable, for which he has given value without notice of the plaintiff's equity. Folashade v. Duroshola (1961) 1 All N.L.R. 87.

Notice in equity is knowledge of an existing fact which may take any of the three forms:

• a. Actual notice: A purchaser has express notice of a prior interest whether at the time when value is given him or at any time before the completion of the transaction. Hummani Ajoke v. A. Y. Oba (1958) W.N.L.R. 208.
• b. Constructive notice: This is where a purchaser has knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on enquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that he is about to purchase. G.B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 63.
• c. Imputed notice: This is a kind of notice which is neither actual nor constructive to the purchaser but which is imputed to him through the actual or constructive knowledge of his agent. Notice will be imputed to a purchaser only through his bonafide agent. See Orasanmi v. Idowu (1959) 4 F.S.C. 40.