Equity and Delay: A Legal Perspective
Delay defeats equity
Introduction:
Equity helps those who are vigilant toward their rights. Reasonable diligence is the first requisite for an equitable relief. If a person has negligently slept over his rights for a length of time disproportionately long, equity will not allow him to litigate in respect of them. The person who is guilty of laches or undue delay is not entitled to the relief by the court of equity.
Meaning:
It means equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent.
Purpose:
This maxim discourages laches by making it a bar to relief.
Doctrine of laches:
Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from obtaining an equitable relief is called laches. A plaintiff who is guilty of laches or unreasonable delay is not entitled to equitable relief.
(i) Acquiescence:
Acquiescence means assent after the violation has been completed and the plaintiff has become aware of it. Acquiescence is the chief element of laches.
(ii) Change in defendant position:
A court of equity will not allow a dormant claim to be set up when the means of resisting it, if unfounded, have perished. When by lapse of time the defendant has lost the evidence necessary for resisting the claim, equity discountenances a stale claim.
Application:
This maxim applies only when a claim is made to equitable relief.
When delay is fatal:
In the following cases, delay is fatal.
- Loss of evidence: When available evidence is lost or destroyed.
- Waiver of right: When one has waived his rights, then delay is fatal.
Circumstances when delay can be ignored by the court:
In the following circumstances, delay can be ignored by the court.
- Plaintiff was not aware of his right.
- Plaintiff was not aware of his legal position.
- Plaintiff was a minor.
- Plaintiff was insane.
- Fraud
- Natural act
- Illness
- Under influence
- Substitute
- Process compromise
Limitations:
Following are limitations of this maxim.
- When the law of limitation expressly applies.
- Where it applies by analogy.
- Where the law of limitation does not apply but the cases are governed by ordinary rules of laches.
Position in Pakistan:
The English doctrine of delay and laches showing negligence in seeking relief in the court of equity cannot be applicable in Pakistan in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, which fixes a period of three years within which a suit of specific performance should be filed. So, it has no general application in Pakistan.
Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say that where a person has negligently slept over his right, the court will decline to give him that remedy because equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent. However, this maxim has no application when a legal remedy is available to the party concerned or statutes of limitation prescribe the time in which a remedy is to be enforced.