Delay defeats equity (Law of Equity)

 Q. 1. Delay defeats equity

1. Preface

 Equity always assists those who are active in respect of their rights. It does not assist

those who are careless in respect of their rights. Once the party knows they have

been wronged, they must act relatively swiftly to preserve their rights because delay

defeats equity. The maxim means that a party who delays in enforcing rights will not

be able to seek equitable relief.

2. Lexical Meaning

 It means that if a person is lazy to claim a remedy for the wrong committed against

him then court will refuse to grant him any relief.

Case law

 Where an injured party has been slow to demand a remedy for the wrong for a long

time with apparent indifference, in this case the court will refuse to provide the

remedy to him on the ground of public policy.

3. Basis of the maxim

 It is based on Latin maxim “Vigilantibus non deriemtibus jura subverient” it means

equity aids the vigilant not those who sleep on violation of their rights.

4. Doctrine of Laches (Ghaflat)

 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.

1. Acquiescence (consent)

 Acquiescence means awareness of the plaintiff on the violation of

his right. And is not ready to take legal action in this regard or he

has waived his right it also can become cause of laches.

2. Position of defendant

 A court of equity will not allow a latent claim to be set up because

by the laps of time the defendant has may lost the necessary

evidence for resisting the claim in this case equity will not set up the case.

5. When delay is fatal

Following are the cases where delay is fatal for a party who is desirous of enforcing his right.

1. Loss of evidence

 When the available evidence is lost or destroyed as a result of delay

2. Waiver of rights

 When party has waived his right then delay is fatal.

3. Death of Witness

 Loss of witnesses could be occurred in case of death

6. Circumstances when delay can be ignored by the court

Following are the circumstance when court can ignore the delay

I.  When plaintiff was not aware of his right

II.  When plaintiff was not aware of his legal position

III.  Plaintiff was minor

IV.  Plaintiff was insane

V.  Due to any fraud which is caused of delay

VI.  Any natural act which is caused of delay

VII.  Illness which is caused of delay

VIII.  Undue influence which is cause of delay

IX.  Preprocess of the case which is caused of delay

7. Application of the Maxim

Following are the cases where this maxim can be applied. Details are as under

I. This maxim can be applied only where a right exists and that right is

recognized by law

II. This maxim can be applied where wrong has been done and right has been

violated clearly.

III. This maxim can be applied where law does not provide any relief or for the

breach of right.

8. Limitation of Actions

Following are the limitations of action in this maxim.

 If the cause of action is the contract and the defendant is not the government

then that cause of action must be brought before the court within 6 years if it’s

the government it must be brought within 3 years

 If there is a tort the action must be taken within 3 years .If the defendant is

government in this case action must be taken within 1 year

 If the cause of action is land it must be brought to the court within 12 years

 Tort of defamation must be brought to the court within 1 year

 Equitable interests or right within 6 years

9. 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 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.

PLD 2000

 It was held that courts always keep the vigilant who approaches court in time but do

not help the person who is indolent in pursuing his matter.

10. Preclude Remarks

 To Preclude, we can say that where a person has negligently slept over his right, court

will refuse to provide him remedy because equity aids the vigilant not the indolent.

However this maxim has no application when a legal remedy is available to the party

as well as time limitation has also been set for the enforcement of rights violated.