UNIT 1

HISTORY OF EQUITY

Equity developed as a response to the rigidity and limitations of the common law. The common law system, which originated in England, relied on strict rules and procedures that often led to unjust outcomes. Dissatisfied with the inflexibility of the common law courts, individuals began to petition the King for justice. These petitions were referred to the Lord Chancellor, who decided cases based on principles of fairness, or "equity."
Over time, the decisions of the Chancellors formed a body of law known as "equity." Unlike common law, which focused on legal rights and remedies, equity emphasized fairness and moral righteousness. This development provided more flexible remedies, such as injunctions, specific performance, and equitable estoppel. See the Oxford's Case (1615) which established the supremacy of equity over common law when there was a conflict between the two and the case of Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882) which demonstrated the principle that equity regards as done that which ought to be done, solidifying the equitable interest over legal formalities.

INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITY INTO NIGERIA

The doctrines of equity were introduced into Nigeria through British colonization. The British legal system, which included both common law and equity, was imposed on Nigeria. The reception of English law into Nigeria was facilitated by the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1863, which allowed for the application of English law in the colony. See section 45 of the Interpretation Act which provides that the rules of common law, doctrines of equity, and statutes of general application that were in force in England on January 1, 1900, are applicable in Nigeria, provided they are not inconsistent with Nigerian laws and local circumstances.

RELATION BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW

Equity and common law coexist within the Nigerian legal system. While common law focuses on legal rights and remedies, equity provides more flexible and fair solutions where the common law may be too rigid or harsh. Equity does not replace common law but rather supplements it, providing remedies and justice in cases where common law might fail. Equity follows the law, meaning that equitable principles do not override statutory provisions or well-established common law principles unless there is a conflict. In such cases, equity prevails to ensure justice is served. See the case of Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria emphasized that equity follows the law and cannot override statutory provisions and the case of Ebeeduo v. Ebeeduo (1973) which highlighted the role of equity in providing remedies that common law could not, such as specific performance.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW

Conflicts between equity and common law often arose when the rigid application of common law principles resulted in unfair outcomes. Equity developed to mitigate these harsh results by providing remedies that were more flexible and fair. The conflict between equity and common law was resolved in England by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, which merged the administration of law and equity into a single court system. Nigeria inherited this unified system, ensuring that both legal and equitable principles could be applied by the same courts. See the case of Adegbite v. Ogunfaolu (1990) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that where there is a conflict between common law and equity, equity will prevail.

NATURE OF EQUITABLE RIGHTS

Equitable rights are rights recognized and enforced by equity. They are personal and discretionary, meaning they may not be as absolute as legal rights but are based on fairness and justice. Equitable rights can be remedial, such as the right to an injunction or specific performance, or substantive, such as equitable interests in property. See the case of Ogundiani v. Araba (1978) where the Supreme Court of Nigeria discussed the nature of equitable rights and their enforcement, emphasizing fairness and justice and the case of Onwugbufor v. Okoye (1996) which highlighted the discretionary nature of equitable remedies, illustrating how equity operates to achieve fair outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the doctrines of equity play a crucial role in the Nigerian legal system, providing flexibility and fairness where common law may fall short. Understanding the history, introduction, relationship, conflicts, and nature of equitable rights is essential for comprehending the full scope of the Nigerian legal landscape.